250604.mbx

250604.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 4, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 111 Headlines 1GLOBE CAPITAL: Gestion Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir. 218 HOLDING INC: Swartz Sues Over Inaccessible Properties 274 BROADWAY CORP: Ortega Sues Over Fraudulent Information Returns 3M COMPANY: Beranich Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ABC INTERNET: Bowman Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Dragone Gets Initial Nod ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Levy Gets Initial Nod ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Monroe Gets Initial Nod ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Neblock Gets Initial Nod ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Court Conditionally OK's Collective Settlement AFFINITY INSURANCE: Class Certification Bid Continued to Sept. 19 ALERA GROUP INC: Grubb Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ALLIANCE LIFTBOATS: Breaux Seeks to Certify Collective Action AMARIN CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in New Jersey AMARIN CORP: Suit Relating to ANDA Litigation Closed AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Ruling on Appeal from "Simons" Dismissal AMERICAN ARBITRATION: Monopolizes Consumer Arbitrations, Suit Says AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Clausner Sues Over Private Data Breach ANDY FRAIN: Bryan Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices ANTHROPIC PBC: Class Cert Supplemental Briefing Order Entered APELLIS PHARMA: Awaits 1st Cir. Ruling in Securities Suit APOLLO GLOBAL: Suit vs. PlayAGS Remains Pending APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Delivery Fees APPLOVIN CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California ARBOR GREEN: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ARBOR REALTY TRUST: Faces Securities Suit in New York ARDENT HEALTH: Awaiting Final Approval of Cybersecurity Suit Deal ATLAS ENERGY: Fisher Sues to Recover Unpaid Work Time BAJCO INT'L: Parties Seek to Extend Class Briefing Schedule BANK OF AMERICA: Bolanos Bid for Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to June 10 BANK OF AMERICA: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Amended BLUE RIDGE: Awaits Prelim Approval of "Hunter" Class Settlement BODYWORKS DW: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Zhang Claims BOISE CASCADE COMPANY: Orchard Files Suit in Wash. Super. Ct. BRADLEY HOSPITALITY: Bosley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida BRUCE LACKEY: Imber Suit Seeks Class Certification BUBBLE BEAUTY: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BURTON CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Morgan Gets Final Nod CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Ellis Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices CARDLYTICS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Georgia CAREDX INC: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Certification Deadline CARTER'S RETAIL: Luna Suit Removed to S.D. California CDHA MANAGEMENT: Callum et al. Sue Over Private Data Breach CENCORA INC: Baldwin Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification CERNER CORP: Carnahan Sues Over Alleged Breach of Private Data CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Faces Narayan Labor Suit in California Court CIOX HEALTH: Harvey Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Goldovsky Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces G.B. Suit Over Private Data Breach COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Neu Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Financial Info, Squeo Says COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Eisenberg Says COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Quito Alleges COINBASE INC: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Unsecured Personal Info COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Gershzon Suit Seeks Class Certification COUNT FINANCIAL: Federal Court Dismisses Breach Class Action Suit DAS ACQUISITION: Nash Allowed Leave to File First Amended Complaint DAVID SALINAS: Class Discovery Deadline in Taft Extended to June 9 DESTINATION XL GROUP: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Bell Action Remanded to Cal. Superior Court DICKINSON COLLEGE: Class Certification Bids in Jurek Due Oct.17 DIDI GLOBAL: Seeks Permission to File Class Cert Sur-Reply ECMD INC: $400K Settlement in Madison Suit Gets Initial Nod EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Garceau Suit Seeks to Certify Class EOUTDOORS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Claims FAMILY DOLLAR: Agrees to Ground Coffee Class Action Settlement FASTAFF LLC: Response to Class Cert Bid in Egan Suit Restricted FRONTIER AIRLINES: Appeals Court Order in Joyner Suit to 10th Cir. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Burkhart SAC GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Faces TVPX Suit GEO GROUP: Adelanto Detainees' Suit Remains Stayed GILEAD SCIENCES: Continues to Defend HIV Drugs Antitrust Suit GILEAD SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suit GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Seeks Denial of Bid for Class Certification GLOBAL E-TRADING: Bid to Limit Arrothers' Testimony Partly OK'd GLOBE LIFE: Class Suit vs. Unit Proceeds to Arbitration GLOBE LIFE: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas GOLDEN CORRAL: Settlement Class Certified in Data Breach Suit GOLDMAN FINANCIAL: Leonard Allowed Leave to Take Class Discovery GRAHAM BRUWER: Ramus Can File Amended Complaint GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefing GUNNAR OPTIKS: Clements Appeals BIPA Suit Ruling to 7th Circuit HAMILTON POLICE: McCarley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime HANDEL'S ENTERPRISES: Ice Cream Contains Synthetic Ingredients HEARX WEST: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Romprey Due Sept. 22 HICKAM COMMUNITIES: Claims in Water Contamination Suit Narrowed HOLLEY INC: Awaits Ruling in Bid to Junk Kentucky Securities Suit HOMERUN ELECTRONICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Munro Claims IATSE LOCAL: Faces Class Action Over Nepotism in Union Membership IGLOO PRODUCTS: Strauss Files Mislabeling Suit Over Coolers IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT: Del Castillo Balks at Unprotected Info IMPERIAL RECOVERY: Failed to Pay Sufficient Wages, Shaw-Gaston Says INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod IONQ INC: Wins Favorable Ruling in 4th Cir. in Securities Suit IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Sundaram Sues Over Share Price Drop JBS FOODS: Settles Price Fixing Class Action Suit for $83MM JOMASHOP INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Discount Ads JOSH WANDER: General Pretrial Management Order Entered KIRSCH BUILDER'S SUPPLY: Storey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART: Sheehan Appeals R&R Adoption to 2nd Circuit LASERAWAY LLC: Shiraev Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIGHT & WONDER: Automatic Card Shufflers Suit Remains Pending LIGHT & WONDER: Class Deal Pending Approval in Suit vs. SciPlay LOBLAW COS: Judge OKs $500MM Bread Price Fixing Class Settlement LONGHORN PIZZA: Sprague Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses LOYA CASUALTY: Class Cert Bid in Marroquin Continued to July 23 MARQETA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid MONAT GLOBAL CORP: Kreifels Suit Removed to C.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Wright Suit Transferred to N.D. California MOSAIC COMPANY: Continues to Defend Radiation Suit in Florida MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Settlement Proposed in BIPA Class Suit NATIONAL HOCKEY: Court Dismisses Conspiracy Class Action Lawsuit NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Beatty Sues Over Unprotected Private Information NEW JERSEY PERFORMING: Knowles Slams Blind-Inaccessible Website NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Rubbermaid Food Containers NEXTDOOR HOLDINGS: KVSB Securities Suit in Discovery Stage ONE NEVADA: Immigration Class Suit Settlement Gets Court Final OK OPENAI INC: Silverman Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 OPENAI INC: Tremblay Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 OTTER TAIL: Continues to Defend PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation PAPA TEXAS: Salazar Sues Over Flawed Expense Reimbursement Method PETER ANDREWS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Says POTBELLY CORP: Settlement in Washington Suit Pending for Approval PRESTAMOS CDFI: Court Rejects Marshall Class Certification Bid PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod QUEBEC: To Pay Damages for Violations of Criminal Code, Court Says RED CAT: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Sue July 22 REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bid for Leave to File Reply Under Seal OK'd REPUBLIC SERVICES: Charges Customers Unlawful Fees, Suit Says REPUBLIC SERVICES: Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Report by June 13 ROCKETREACH LLC: McClure Suit Removed to S.D. California SALTIE GIRL: Clayton and Soltani Sue Over Labor Code Breaches SAN DIEGO HAT: Faces Battle Suit Over Website Inaccessibility SANGAMON COUNTY, IL: Woods Suit Seeks Class Certification SCHNADER HARRISON: Bennett Class Cert. Filing Extended to June 23 SCI ROCKVIEW: Pugh Suit Seeks to Certify Class SEA WORLD: Agrees to Settle Auto-Renewal Class Suit for $1.5MM SERVICEAIDE INC: Balzer Sues Over Failure to Protect Information SHADE STORE: Continuation of Class Cert Hearing to August 6 Sought SHADE STORE: Fitzgerald Class Cert Reply Extended to June 24 SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE: Seeks to Dismiss TILA Class Action Lawsuit SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Valdez Suit Seeks Class Certification SMARTRENT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Delaware Securities Suit SNAP INC: Black Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class SOGOTRADE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McAfee Says SOLARIS ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Mobile Energy Acquisition SOLID POWER: Continues to Defend "Hamilton" SPLAY ATHLETICS: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind STATE FARM: Court Narrows Claims, Grants Class Status in Gulick STEINHAFELS INC: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Missouri Customer Suits SYMPHONY SPACE: Faces Knowles Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TARGET CORPORATION: Alarcon Suit Removed to C.D. California TARGET CORPORATION: Brown Files Suit in S.D. California TERADATA CORP: Continues to Defend "Ostrander" in California TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Canadian Court Grants Class Status in Opioids TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court OKs $126MM Deal With Hospitals TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Discovery Ongoing in Asthma Inhaler Suit TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Wins Dismissal of DOJ PAP Class Suit TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Pending Arbitration TRANS UNION: Jackson Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal TRANS UNION: Jackson Suit Seeks Class Certification TRUSTWELL LIVING: Bowens Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Uber Eats Service Fees UNITED STATES: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Response OK'd UNITED STATES: Faces Brown Suit Over Racial Discrimination UNITY SOFTWARE: California Court Dismisses Securities Suit UPHOLD HQ: Court Dismisses Suit over CredEarn Program VALLEY GYM CORP: Woodum Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida VANGUARD GROUP: Court Rejects $135MM Settlement VAXART INC: Parties Seek Approval of Class & Subclass Notice VERISK ANALYTICS: Bid to Dismiss MDL No. 3115 Remains Pending VERRA MOBILITY: Awaits Final OK of Class Settlement in "Brantley" VETERANS GUARDIAN: Ford UDTPA Suit Seeks Class Certification WALMART INC: Joint Ex Parte Application for Stay Tossed WARBURG PINCUS: Chancery Court Rejects CityMD Merger Lawsuit WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Class Settlement in Snyder Gets Initial Nod WAYNE LOPEZ: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Laccinole Due Oct. 10 XPO LAST MILE: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule ZA RESTAURANT: George Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge ZACHARY PIPER: Agyekum Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay ********* 1GLOBE CAPITAL: Gestion Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MW GESTION is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled MW Gestion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1Globe Capital LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-11315-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arises from the Defendants' fraud in connection with their battle for control of Sinovac, a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization of vaccines. According to the complaint, since January 2016, competing sets of shareholders have been vying for control of Sinovac. The Defendants are individuals and entities associated with 1Globe Capital LLC, a family investment office that is owned and controlled by the Defendant Jiaqiang Li. After Sinovac adopted a rights agreement on March 28, 2016, containing a "poison pill" that limited the amount of Sinovac stock that a shareholder could acquire (the "Rights Agreement"), the Defendants made many intentionally false and misleading statements, and violated their statutory disclosure obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in order to conceal the extent and purpose of Li's and 1Globe's ownership of Sinovac stock, says the suit. On Dec. 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Jan. 19, 2023. On Aug. 18, 2023, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Counts I, II and III, and denying Count IV. On Mar. 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file the second amended class action complaint, which Judge Gorton denied on Apr. 23, 2025. The appellate case is entitled MW Gestion v. 1Globe Capital LLC, et al., Case No. 25-1506, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on May 27, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MW GESTION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq. Glen DeValerio, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP P.O. Box 67101 Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 Telephone: (617) 999-6473 - and - Michael Grunfeld, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 3rd Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Defendants-Appellees 1GLOBE CAPITAL LLC, et al. are represented by: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich St. New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 937-7220 - and - Andrew R. Jumper, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6250 - and - Timothy Jeffrey Perla, Esq. Erika M. Schutzman, Esq. Peter A. Spaeth, Esq. WILMERHALE LLP 60 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6696 (617) 526-6590 (617) 526-6000 218 HOLDING INC: Swartz Sues Over Inaccessible Properties --------------------------------------------------------- Helen Swartz, Individually, on her behalf and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. 218 HOLDING, INC., a New York Corporation, and 88 CITY DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-04354 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and for damages pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law and New York Civil Rights Law as a result of the Defendants' inaccessible properties. The Plaintiff had trip planned to New York City, and had a reservation at Defendants' hotel for August 28 through September 4th. She called the hotel 3 days prior to the trip to confirm that she would have an accessible room with a roll-in shower, and same was confirmed via telephone. However, despite having a confirmed reservation for an accessible queen room, when she arrived at the hotel to check in, she was advised that an accessible room was not available for her. The Plaintiff was unable to stay at the hotel and was forced to find another hotel to stay at for her trip. Based upon her treatment at the property, Plaintiff is deterred from returning to the subject property as any reservation she might make for an accessible room may not be honored. In addition to the hotel not having proper procedures in place to ensure that disabled individuals who book an accessible room are actually provided with an accessible room, there were additional violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act which she did not encounter because she was denied an accessible room and was unable to stay as a guest of the hotel (though the Plaintiff has standing to address these issues as well. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff and others similarly situated by denying them access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has multiple sclerosis, is mobility impaired, and uses an electric scooter to ambulate. The Defendants own and/or operate the subject property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Rotbart, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRANDON A. ROTBART, P.A. 11098 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 401-18 Miami, FL 33161 Phone: (305) 350-7400 Email: rotbart@rotbartlaw.com 274 BROADWAY CORP: Ortega Sues Over Fraudulent Information Returns ------------------------------------------------------------------ Oliverio Olivos Ortega, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 274 BROADWAY CORP. d/b/a Emperador Elias Restaurant Corp., and ELIAS CESPEDES, Case No. 1:25-cv-02905 (E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2025), is brought for damages under the Internal Revenue Code for relief, damages, fees in this matter because Defendants willfully filed fraudulent information returns with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants did not withhold any wages from Plaintiff's pay for purposes of paying federal income, New York State income, local income, Social Security, or Medicare taxes. However, for 2018, Emperador falsely reported on Ortega's W-2 that it withheld $1,757.00 in federal income tax, $558.00 in state income tax, $408.00 in local income tax, $1,198.00 (6.20% of $19,380.00) in Social Security tax, and $280.00 (1.45% of $19,380.00) in Medicare tax, from Ortega's pay. Further, for 2019, Emperador falsely reported on Ortega's W-2 that it withheld $2,122.00 in federal income tax, $732.00 in state income tax, $525.00 in local income tax, $1,406.00 (6.20% of $22,680.00) in Social Security tax, and $329.00 (1.45% of $22,680.00) in Medicare tax, from Ortega's pay. Finally, for 2020, Emperador falsely reported on Ortega's W-2 that it withheld $367.00 in federal income tax, $220.00 in state income tax, $156.00 in local income tax, $391.00 (6.20% of $6,300.00) in Social Security tax, and $91.00 (1.45% of $6,300.00) in Medicare tax, from Ortega's pay. The Defendants filed the information returns complained of willfully, in furtherance of a scheme to reduce Emperador's tax liability for its portion of the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes from what they would have been had Ortega's income been reported in full, reducing Plaintiff's entitlement to these programs' benefits to less than it would otherwise be, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a dishwasher and food prep cook at Defendants' restaurant Emperador Elias Restaurant from August 2016 through August 2022. Emperador was a domestic business corporation with a principal place of business at 274 Broadway, Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone (718) 762-1324 Fax (718) 762-1342 Email: troylaw@troypllc.com 3M COMPANY: Beranich Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Patricia Beranich, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-22141 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on May 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04447-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Charles David Durkee, Esq. DOWNS LAW GROUP PA 3250 Mary Street, Suite 307 Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 444-8226 Email ddurkee@downslawgroup.com ABC INTERNET: Bowman Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website -------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. ABC Internet, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05383 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://jeffreycampbellshoes.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Los Angeles, CA, ABC Internet, Inc. owns and operates the commercial website, which offers boots, platforms, heels, sandals, flats, sneakers, and accessories including handbags, jellies, and belts. [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 ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Dragone Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dragone v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00134 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class is estimated to be approximately 2.3 million individuals. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 2. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following California Settlement Subclass for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All Settlement Class Members who are residents of California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 3. Emmanuel Chaidez, Stefondra Monroe, Raymond Moule, Raven Richardson, Don Smith and Raymond Swain are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court finds that Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Amy Keller, and Jason Rathod are experienced attorneys and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class, and designates them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday July 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 6. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from the $10,000,000 Settlement Fund. Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 will also be sought for each of the Class Representatives. Advance is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3JgXRj at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Levy Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Levy v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00137 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class is estimated to be approximately 2.3 million individuals. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 2. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following California Settlement Subclass for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All Settlement Class Members who are residents of California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 3. Emmanuel Chaidez, Stefondra Monroe, Raymond Moule, Raven Richardson, Don Smith and Raymond Swain are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court finds that Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Amy Keller, and Jason Rathod are experienced attorneys and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class, and designates them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday July 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 6. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from the $10,000,000 Settlement Fund. Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 will also be sought for each of the Class Representatives. Advance is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XQO71q at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Monroe Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monroe, et al., v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. et al (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00158 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class is estimated to be approximately 2.3 million individuals. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 2. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following California Settlement Subclass for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All Settlement Class Members who are residents of California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 3. Emmanuel Chaidez, Stefondra Monroe, Raymond Moule, Raven Richardson, Don Smith and Raymond Swain are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court finds that Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Amy Keller, and Jason Rathod are experienced attorneys and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class, and designates them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday July 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 6. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from the $10,000,000 Settlement Fund. Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 will also be sought for each of the Class Representatives. Advance is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dJEnMg at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Neblock Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Neblock v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00153 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class is estimated to be approximately 2.3 million individuals. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 2. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following California Settlement Subclass for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All Settlement Class Members who are residents of California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 3. Emmanuel Chaidez, Stefondra Monroe, Raymond Moule, Raven Richardson, Don Smith and Raymond Swain are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court finds that Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Amy Keller, and Jason Rathod are experienced attorneys and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class, and designates them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday July 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 6. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from the $10,000,000 Settlement Fund. Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 will also be sought for each of the Class Representatives. Advance is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BSe6PT at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Court Conditionally OK's Collective Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derek Thompson, et al., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, V. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02771-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael Watson entered an order that the parties' Renewed Joint Motion for Final Approval of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement and Preliminary Approval of Rule 23 Class Action Settlement is: -- conditionally granted as to the FLSA Collective settlement, and -- granted as to the Rule 23 Class Action settlement. As to the FLSA Collective settlement, the Court conditions its final approval on the parties' revision of the proposed Notice of Collective Action Settlement. The parties are ordered to file a revised proposed notice within seven days of the date of this Opinion and Order. The Rule 23 Classes are defined, for settlement purposes only, as: Ohio Class: All hourly, non-exempt production/yard workers who (1) worked for Defendant at any of its facilities in Ohio from October 18, 2019, through the date of Court preliminary approval of the Settlement, and (2) have not opted into the FLSA Collective; Kentucky Class: "All hourly, non-exempt production/yard workers who (1) worked for Defendant at any of its facilities in Kentucky from July 12, 2017, to the date of Court preliminary approval of the Settlement, and (2) have not opted into the FLSA Collective"; and New York Class: "All hourly, non-exempt production/yard workers who (1) worked for Defendant at any of its facilities from July 12, 2016, to the date of Court preliminary approval of the Settlement, and (2) have not opted into the FLSA Collective." The Named Plaintiff Ronnie Loschiavo is appointed as class representative of the Ohio Class for settlement purposes only. The Named Plaintiff Derek Thompson is appointed as Class Representative of the Kentucky Class for settlement purposes only. e. Named Plaintiff Douglas Scott is appointed as Class Representative of the New York Class for settlement purposes only. Service Awards for Named Plaintiffs Ronnie Loschiavo, Derek Thompson, Douglas Scott, and Shawn Selby are preliminarily approved. The proposed Settlement Agreement encompassing the Ohio, Kentucky, and New York claims is preliminarily approved pursuant to Rule 23(e). Coffman Legal LLC and Bryant Legal, LLC, are appointed as Class Counsel. Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs is preliminarily approved. Analytics Consulting, LLC, is appointed as the Settlement Administrator. The proposed notice plan, including the notice forms is approved, and the Settlement Administrator is directed to distribute notice in accordance with the notice plan. Advanced designs, manufactures and markets polypropylene and polyethylene pipes, plastic leach field chambers and systems, septic tanks and accessories. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oopx0P at no extra charge.[CC] AFFINITY INSURANCE: Class Certification Bid Continued to Sept. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY PYTEL, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. AFFINITY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., AIS AFFINITY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-06347-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order to continue class certification briefing schedule: Event Date Class certification motion and Sept. 19, 2025 Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition, Nov. 26, 2025 Defendants' class certification expert disclosures, and Defendants' Daubert motions due: Class certification expert Jan. 9, 2026 discovery cut-off: Class certification reply Jan. 23, 2026 and Plaintiff's Daubert motions due: On July 30, 2024, the Court issued an order setting deadlines for briefing on class certification. Affinity is the subsidiary of Aon that specializes in developing, marketing and administering customized insurance programs. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9hYs2d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen M. Raab, Esq. Patrick J. Branson, Esq. Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 x109 E-mail: stephen@gutridesafier.com patrick@gutridesafier.com seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com rajiv@gutridesafier.com The Defendants are represented by: Aneca E. Lasley, Esq. ICE MILLER LLP 250 West Street Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43215-7509 Telephone: (614) 462-1085 Facsimile: (614) 232-6899 E-mail: aneca.lasley@icemiller.com - and - Sonia Martin, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 882-5000 Facsimile: (415) 882-0300 E-mail: sonia.martin@dentons.com - and - Jeffrey A. Lipps, Esq. Michael H. Beekhuizen, Esq. CARPENTER LIPPS LLP 280 Plaza, Suite 1300 280 North High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 365 4100 Facsimile: (614) 365-9145 E-mail: lipps@carpenterlipps.com beekhuizen@carpenterlipps.com ALERA GROUP INC: Grubb Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alera Group, Inc. The case is styled as Sophia Grubb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alera Group, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05814 (N.D. Ill., May 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Alera Group -- https://aleragroup.com/ -- is a financial services firm specializing in employee benefits, property and casualty insurance, and wealth management programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com ALLIANCE LIFTBOATS: Breaux Seeks to Certify Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK BREAUX AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. ALLIANCE LIFTBOATS, LLC AND THE L/B MIAMI IN REM, HER ENGINES, TACKLE, EQUIPMENT, APPURTENANCES, ETC. Case No. 2:24-cv-01000-SM-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify as a collective action: "All crewmembers on Alliance liftboats who were paid a day rate despite no exemption, for the time period April 19, 2021, to April 19, 2024, all for the reasons in the accompanying memorandum." Alliance specializes in providing liftboats for shallow waters (depths 160 ft. of less) operations in the Gulf of Mexico. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KzsnF9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harry E. Morse, Esq. Martin S. Bohman, Esq. BOHMAN | MORSE, LLC 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2050 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 930-4009 Facsimile: (888) 217-2744 E-mail: HARRY@BOHMANMORSE.COM MARTIN@BOHMANMORSE.COM - and - Cayce Peterson, Esq. Jeff Green, Esq. JJC LAW LLC 3914 Canal St. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 513-8820 E-mail: cayce@jjclaw.com jeff@jjclaw.com AMARIN CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- Amarin Corporation plc continues to defend itself against antitrust class action lawsuits in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Amarin is named as a defendant in six antitrust class action lawsuits in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, as displayed in the table below. Each of the six antitrust class action lawsuits allege Amarin and its co-defendant suppliers violated federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs also assert related state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, treble damages, other costs and fees, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief against the alleged violative activities. The Direct Purchaser plaintiffs seek treble damages and other costs and fees. Such antitrust litigation and antitrust investigations, can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt the Company's business. The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims, but cannot predict when these matters will be resolved, their outcome or their potential loss exposure or impact on the Company's business. If it is determined that Amarin has violated antitrust law, the Company could be subject to significant civil fines and penalties. AMARIN CORP: Suit Relating to ANDA Litigation Closed ---------------------------------------------------- Amarin Corporation plc disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the class action lawsuit relating to the Company's patent litigation related to its Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, is closed. On October 21, 2021, a purported investor in the Company's publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, the former chief executive officer and the former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Vincent Dang v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Michael W. Kalb, No. 1:21-cv-19212 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2021). A subsequent case, Dorfman v. Amarin Corporation plc, et al., No. 3:21-cv-19911 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 10, 2021), was filed in November 2021. In December 2021, several Amarin shareholders moved to consolidate the cases and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The complaints in these actions are nearly identical and allege that the Company misled investors by allegedly downplaying the risk associated with the Company's patent litigation related to its Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, that sought U.S. FDA approval for the sale of generic versions of icosapent ethyl, or ANDA litigation, and the risk that certain of the Company's patents related to the MARINE indication would be invalidated. Based on these allegations, plaintiffs allege that they purchased securities at an inflated share price and brought claims under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 seeking unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2022, the court consolidated the cases and appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class. On January 13, 2023, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that also named the former general counsel, and again alleged that the Company made false statements regarding the ANDA litigation as well as about the REDUCE-IT indication and VASCEPA's financial prospects resulting from REDUCE-IT. All defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint and on September 25, 2024, the New Jersey District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for all counts, without prejudice, permitting the Plaintiffs 30 days to amend and refile their lawsuit. On October 24, 2024, the court subsequently granted the Plaintiffs request for an additional 30 days to amend and refile the complaint. On November 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs advised the court that they would not refile their complaint, closing the case. AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Ruling on Appeal from "Simons" Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting ruling on the appeal from the dismissal of the class action captioned Simons v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2023-0835-MTZ. On August 14, 2023, a putative class action on behalf of holders of AMC Preferred Equity Units, captioned Simons v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2023-0835-MTZ (the "Simons Action"), was filed against the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Simons Action asserted claims for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and breach of contract, and alleged that the Settlement Payment in the Shareholder Litigation violated the Certificate of Designations that governed the AMC Preferred Equity Units prior to the conversion of the AMC Preferred Equity Units into Common Stock. On September 12, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 26, 2023, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which added a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On February 16, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 2, 2024, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. On October 30, 2024, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Delaware Supreme Court. On April 30, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court heard argument on the appeal and took the matter under advisement. AMERICAN ARBITRATION: Monopolizes Consumer Arbitrations, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephanie Stephens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01650-JJT (D. Ariz., May 15, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Sherman and Clayton Act, the Arizona Antitrust Act, and the Arizona Constitution. According to the complaint, the American Arbitration Association, has obtained over 90% of the consumer arbitration market and created an illegal monopoly in consumer arbitrations. AAA's monopoly harms competition and consumers by ensuring consumers have no choice in choosing between arbitration forums or even what arbitrator AAA assigns them. Through its anticompetitive practices, the American Arbitration Association has created a monopolistic second-tiered justice system that provides consumers with no choice in the forum, the arbitrator, or rules. Instead, there is only one consistent rule: consumers lose 76% of the time in arbitrations they initiate. This is done intentionally through draconian rules, cut-rate arbitrations, and the selection of predominantly corporate defense counsel, as opposed to retired judges, to act as arbitrators, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a consumer who has contracted with companies to resolve disputes via the AAA's Consumer Rules arbitration forum. American Arbitration Association, Inc. is a non-profit organization focused in the field of alternative dispute resolution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM 2290 East Speedway Boulevard Tucson, AZ 85719 Telephone: (602) 807-1504 Facsimile: (480) 613-7733 E-mail: srotkis@consumerjustice.com - and - David A. Chami, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM 8095 North 85th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 626-2359 Facsimile: (480) 613-7733 E-mail: dchami@consumerjustice.com AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Clausner Sues Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- CASTEN CLAUSNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY GROUP INC., d/b/a ESSE HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00711 (E.D. Mo., May 15, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of its patients and/or employees, including, but not limited to full names, Social Security Numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information, medical treatment information and medical/patient identification number. In early April of 2025, the Defendant detected unusual activity that disrupted access to its network. This prompted cancellation of previously scheduled patient visits and prompted the Defendant to self-report the cyber-attack. The Defendant's investigation as to the scope of the attack is ongoing. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action and asserts claims for negligence/wantonness, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and for violations of Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, American Multispecialty Group Inc. provides a variety of healthcare and related services to its patients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Blvd, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 678-1064 Facsimile: (314) 721-0905 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com ANDY FRAIN: Bryan Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER BRYAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDY FRAIN SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05402 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to implement or maintain adequate data security practices. On October 23, 2024, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity on its IT network. Defendant admitted that the private information in its system was accessed by unauthorized individuals. However, the Defendant provided little information regarding how the data breach occurred. In addition, it was only on April 30, 2025 that Defendant made a public disclosure about the data breach and began sending notice letters to individuals impacted. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; and breach of implied contract. Headquartered in Aurora, IL, Andy Frain Services, Inc. provides security and event staffing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DE MARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com ANTHROPIC PBC: Class Cert Supplemental Briefing Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA BARTZ, CHARLES GRAEBER, and KIRK WALLACE JOHNSON, v. ANTHROPIC PBC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order regarding class certification supplemental briefing: The judge has not made any decision. Include whether the named plaintiffs fall within these classes. Pirated Class: "All registered owners of the right to copy and reproduce or to prepare derivative works or a generic copyright not excluding the foregoing for any book included in Books3, PiLiMi, or LibGen. Scanned Class: Same but for any book in the Scanned List. Anthropic is an AI safety and research company based in San Francisco. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YEbWVl at no extra charge.[CC] APELLIS PHARMA: Awaits 1st Cir. Ruling in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is awaiting ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of the securities class action suit, 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 August 2, 2023, Judith M. Soderberg filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain current and former executive officers of the Company (the "Complaint"). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by misrepresenting and/or omitting certain material facts related to the design of SYFOVRE's clinical trials and the risks associated with SYFOVRE's commercial adoption. The Complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages and equitable relief in favor of the alleged class against all defendants, including interest, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred by plaintiffs, including attorneys' and expert fees. On October 23, 2023, the Court appointed Ray Peleckas and Michigan Laborers' Pension Fund together as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and assigned the action the caption In Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case 1:23-cv-00834-MN. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 8, 2024 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Apellis common stock between January 28, 2021 and July 28, 2023, inclusive, names the Company and Cedric Francois, the Company's chief executive officer, as defendants, and makes similar allegations, asserts the same claims and seeks the same relief as the Complaint. On October 2, 2023, the defendants moved to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 17, 2025, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. On April 16, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. APOLLO GLOBAL: Suit vs. PlayAGS Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative class action filed against PlayAGS Inc. remains pending. On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against PlayAGS Inc. ("PlayAGS"), all of the members of PlayAGS's board of directors (including three directors who are affiliated with Apollo), certain underwriters of PlayAGS (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), as well as AAM, Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC (these last four parties, together, the "Apollo Defendants"). The complaint asserted claims against all defendants arising under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain secondary offerings of PlayAGS stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019, alleging that the registration statements issued in connection with those offerings did not fully disclose certain business challenges facing PlayAGS. The complaint further asserted a control person claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Apollo Defendants and the director defendants (including the directors affiliated with Apollo), alleging such defendants were responsible for certain misstatements and omissions by PlayAGS about its business. On December 2, 2022, the Court dismissed all claims against the underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC) and the Apollo Defendants, but allowed a claim against PlayAGS and two of PlayAGS's executives to proceed. On February 13, 2024, the Court dismissed the entire case against all defendants, with prejudice, and instructed the clerk of the court to close the case. On March 27, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, in full, the District Court's dismissal of claims against all defendants. "Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. No reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time," the Company stated. APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Delivery Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ A new class action lawsuit alleges Applebee's fails to adequately disclose delivery fees on its website and app, misleading consumers about the true cost of their orders. Plaintiff Michael Drake filed a class action lawsuit against Applebee's on May 12 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, the restaurant chain adds multiple fees to delivery orders, including a "delivery charge," "service fee" and "CA delivery surcharge," which are not disclosed until the final checkout screen. Drake alleges that this practice is deceptive and unfair, as it prevents consumers from making informed decisions about their purchases. According to the class action lawsuit, "Applebee's prominently advertises pricing that is drastically altered by the time the payment screen populates." The lawsuit further states that "on the final payment screen, consumers are surprised as Applebee's surreptitiously adds a host of erroneous extra fees to all food delivery orders." Applebee's charges two delivery fees, lawsuit alleges The lawsuit claims that the "CA delivery surcharge" is particularly misleading, as it is presented as a mandatory, government-imposed fee. However, Drake alleges that this fee does not correspond to any governmental charge and is instead a "junk fee" that Applebee's uses to increase its profits. Drake argues that Applebee's charges consumers a separate "delivery charge" in addition to the "CA delivery surcharge," effectively requiring consumers to pay twice for the same service. The lawsuit also alleges that the "service fee" and "delivery charge" are similarly deceptive, as they do not provide any additional service or benefit to consumers. The complaint alleges that Applebee's failure to disclose these fees upfront gives it an unfair advantage over competitors who provide full pricing transparency. Drake claims that he and other consumers have been misled into paying more for their orders than they initially expected. As a result, Drake is looking to represent anyone in the United States who ordered food through Applebee's website or app and was charged a "service fee" or "CA delivery surcharge." He is suing for violations of California consumer protection laws and seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In similar circumstances, a Chipotle class action accuses the company of disguising heavy service fee charges as a "tax" for online orders, while another lawsuit accuses Uber of unlawfully charging sales tax on delivery fees for food orders in Florida. What do you think of the allegations in this Applebee's delivery fees class action? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law P.A. The Applebee's delivery fees class action is Drake v. Applebee's Restaurants LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-04085, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] APPLOVIN CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- AppLovin Corporation continues to defend itself against a securities class suit pending in the Northern District of California, 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 early March 2025, certain alleged stockholders filed putative class action complaints against the company, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and/or Herald Chen asserting claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeking unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On March 5, 2025, Michael Quiero filed the first complaint against the company, Adam Foroughi, and Matt Stumpf in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Northern District of California"); on March 24, 2025, Ben Brownback filed the second complaint in the same court against the company, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and Herald Chen in the Northern District of California; and on April 17, 2025, the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System filed the third complaint in the same court against the company, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and Herald Chen in the Northern District of California (collectively, the "Securities Complaints"). The Securities Complaints allege that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding our Advertising solutions and financial growth. The Securities Complaints allege a putative class period running from May 10, 2023 through March 26, 2025. "We believe that the allegations in the Securities Complaints lack merit and will vigorously contest these actions," the Company stated. ARBOR GREEN: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS HOLDEN, DREW LULOW and SAMUEL SCHMUCKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ARBOR GREEN, INC. and CHRISTY WADE, Case No. 3:23-cv-00461-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification and for the Defendants to file their motion for FLSA decertification to June 21, 2025. The parties therefore request that the Court extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Rule 23 certification by 30 days and to further extend the deadline for the Arbor Green Defendants to move for FLSA decertification by 30 days, so that in the unlikely event the parties do not wrap up a settlement that is approved by the Court and results in the lawsuit being dismissed with prejudice, extending the deadline for class certification and FLSA decertification will not require a showing of good cause under Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties expect to have the settlement agreement signed in the upcoming days, so that no further extensions to the scheduling order will be necessary. Under the current Scheduling Order, the deadlines for Plaintiffs to file a motion for Rule 23 class certification is May 22, 2025, and the deadlines for the Arbor Green Defendants to move for FLSA decertification is May 22, 2025. During a mediation held on March 4, 2025, the parties agreed in principle to the economic terms of an individual and collective settlement. Arbor is a construction company, specializing in landscaping, fences and gates. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aE092F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com The Defendants are represented by: Sally A. Piefer, Esq. Kristofor L. Hansen, Esq. LINDNER & MARSACK, S.C. 411 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1800 Milwaukee, WI 53202-4498 Telephone: (414) 273-3910 Facsimile: (414) 273-0522 E-mail: spiefer@lindner-marsack.com khanson@lindner-marsack.com ARBOR REALTY TRUST: Faces Securities Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2025, that on July 31, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit against the company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders who purchased shares of common stock between May 7, 2021 and July 11, 2024. On November 5, 2024, the court approved the motion appointing the lead plaintiffs and their counsel. An amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiffs on January 21, 2025. The amended complaint alleged that the company made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information in connection with allegedly overriding internal controls, engaging in substandard lending practices and not complying with agency requirements. The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an unspecified amount, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On April 10, 2025, the company served a motion to dismiss the case, which remains pending. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. is a nationwide real estate investment trust and direct lender, providing loan origination and servicing for commercial real estate assets. ARDENT HEALTH: Awaiting Final Approval of Cybersecurity Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ardent Health Partners, 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 is awaiting final court approval of the settlement in the consolidated class action lawsuit relating to the November 2023 cybersecurity incident. In November 2023, the Company determined that a ransomware cybersecurity incident had impacted and disrupted a number of the Company's operational and information technology systems (the "Cybersecurity Incident"). During this time, the Company's hospitals remained operational and continued to deliver patient care utilizing established downtime procedures. The Company immediately suspended user access to impacted information technology applications, executed cybersecurity protection protocols, and took steps to restrict further unauthorized activity. Additionally, because of the time taken to contain and remediate the Cybersecurity Incident, online electronic billing systems were not functioning at their full capacities and certain billing, reimbursement and payment functions were delayed, which had an adverse impact on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for 2023 and the first quarter of 2024. As a result of the Cybersecurity Incident, three putative class actions were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee: Burke v. AHS Medical Holdings LLC, No. 3:23-cv-01308; Redd v. AHS Medical Holdings, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-01342; and Epperson v. AHS Management Company, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00396. These cases were consolidated by the District Court on April 24, 2024, under the caption Hodge v. AHS Management Company, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01308 (M.D. Tenn.). The complaint for the consolidated class action, filed on behalf of approximately 38,000 individuals who allege their personal information and protected health information were affected by the Cybersecurity Incident, generally asserts state common law claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and invasion of privacy with respect to how the Company managed sensitive data. On October 4, 2024, the Company executed a settlement agreement to resolve the consolidated class action litigation. On October 9, 2024, the District Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set the hearing for the District Court's final approval of the settlement for August 1, 2025. "Settlement of the consolidated case on the agreed terms will require the Company to make cash settlement payments that will not have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, financial position or liquidity. The Company received $21.5 million of business insurance recovery proceeds related to the Cybersecurity Incident during the three months ended March 31, 2025, all of which was included in other non-operating gains on the Company's consolidated income statement," the Company said. ATLAS ENERGY: Fisher Sues to Recover Unpaid Work Time ----------------------------------------------------- Bobby Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATLAS ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC.; Case No. 1:25-cv-00788 (W.D. Tex., May 23, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid work time, including overtime, consists of several hours per week and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the wage and hour laws--or, alternatively, the common law--of Ohio such as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), the Ohio Wage Prompt Pay Law ("OPPA"), alternatively, Ohio common law (collectively, "Ohio State Laws"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant willfully and purposely failed to pay him, and those similarly situated to him, wages, including minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the law. The Defendant deliberately refused to compensate Plaintiff and others similarly situated for time spent engaged in work while traveling to Defendant's physical job sites, and vice versa. Defendant also failed to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for time spent traveling to and from employer-controlled housing at remote works, and time spent completing mandatory training. The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and the Ohio Class that Defendant violated Ohio State Laws by failing to comply with the overtime provisions of the OMFWSA, including any uncompensated minimum wages, and failing to pay the Ohio Class as required by the OPPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant driving a forklift as a Senior Equipment Operator from October 5, 2024, through mid-May, 2025. Atlas Energy Solutions, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and is headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Lippe, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LIPPE & ASSOCIATES Park Place at Turtle Creek 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1250 Dallas, TX 75219-6212 Phone: (214) 855-1850 Email: emil@texaslaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (267) 344-0990 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Email: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com BAJCO INT'L: Parties Seek to Extend Class Briefing Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIERAN BEARD, v. BAJCO INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00170-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a one-week extension of the parties' briefing schedule as follows: Proposed Deadline Defendants' brief in opposition to May 27, 2025 Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of FLSA collective action: Plaintiff's reply brief in support of its June 10, 2025 motion for conditional certification of FLSA Collective Action: Bajco operates in the quick-serve restaurant, business management, and commercial real estate industries. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gLCpKQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Laura E. Farmwald, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com lfarmwald@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com The Defendants are represented by: Alex R. Frondorf, Esq. Jason T. Hartzell, Esq. Shannon Henry, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Suite 1600 Cleveland, OH 44114-9612 Telephone: (216) 696-7600 Facsimile: (216) 696-2038 E-mail: afrondorf@littler.com jhartzell@littler.com shenry@littler.com BANK OF AMERICA: Bolanos Bid for Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIOVANNA BOLANOS, et al., v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-04027-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice, -- staying the case and vacating all case dates, and -- continuing the Further Case Management Conference set for May 21, 2025, to July 30, 2025. Bank of America offers a wide range of banking, investment, and wealth management services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D14lOF at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to June 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RAMIREZ, MYNOR VILLATORO ALDANA, AND JANET HOBSON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order setting briefing schedule and rescheduling hearing on motion to certify class. The Defendants are granted leave to file a sur-reply to the plaintiff's motion to certify a class of no more than 15 pages by no later than May 31, 2025. The Plaintiffs may file a response of no more than seven (7) pages by no later than June 4, 2025. The hearings scheduled for May 27, 2025, on the Motion to Strike and the Motion to Certify Class are reset to June 10, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom One of the United States District Court, Oakland, California. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OrQOPm at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Amended -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLE NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 5:23-cv-04999-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the unopposed motion for extension of time and to amend the class certification briefing schedule. The Plaintiff's reply is due May 29, 2025. The Court will hold a hearing on the motion for class certification on June 18, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. Bank of America offers a wide range of banking, investment, and wealth management services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KE0KKp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq. Chelsea E. Espiritu, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984 8700 Facsimile: (415) 984 8701 E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com cespiritu@omm.com BLUE RIDGE: Awaits Prelim Approval of "Hunter" Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Ridge Bankshares, 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 is awaiting preliminary approval of the class settlement in the case captioned Russell Hunter v. Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc., et al. On December 5, 2023, an alleged shareholder of the Company commenced a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (No. 1:23-cv-08944) (Russell Hunter v. Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc., et al.) on behalf of himself and any persons or entities who purchased the publicly traded stock of the Company between February 3, 2023, and October 31, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Action"). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws against the Company and certain of its current and former officers based on alleged material misstatements and omissions related to accounting judgments in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint seeks certification of a class action, unspecified damages, and attorney's fees. The putative class representative filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a letter seeking permission to file a motion to dismiss. The parties engaged in non-binding mediation on December 5, 2024, during which the parties agreed in principle to settlement terms for $2.5 million. On February 4, 2025, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement, which, if granted, will settle the Action and any claims related to the Action or that could have been brought in the Action by the parties, the parties' counsel, or settlement class members (the "Motion"). The Motion expressly disclaims any fault, liability, or wrongdoing on the part of the Company. The Company said its outside legal counsel has effected service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, of the Motion and related court filings to the Company's federal and state regulators as well as to Attorneys General for all U.S. states and territories. The court has not yet ruled on the Motion. The Company added that it has submitted an insurance claim for this amount, less a deductible that was expensed in 2024. BODYWORKS DW: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Zhang Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ZHANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bodyworks DW, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04097 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2025) arises from Defendants' 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. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to the services offered to the public through its website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Headquartered in New York, NY, Bodyworks DW, Inc. owns and operates the commercial website, Bodyworksdw.com, which offers information about massage services in its physical locations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com BOISE CASCADE COMPANY: Orchard Files Suit in Wash. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boise Cascade Company. The case is styled as Mark Orchard, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Boise Cascade Company, Case No. 25-2-00184-33 (Wash. Super. Ct., Stevens Cty., May 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "EMP Employment." Boise Cascade Company -- https://www.bc.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of wood products and wholesale distributor of building materials, headquartered in Boise, Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Ste., 101 Pasadena, CA 91103-3069 Phone: 818-230-7502 Email: statavos@justicelawcorp.com BRADLEY HOSPITALITY: Bosley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bradley Hospitality LLC. The case is styled as Cassandra Bonaire Bosley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bradley Hospitality LLC doing business as: La Mesa Miami, Case No. 1:25-cv-22336-BB (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. Bradley Hospitality LLC doing business as La Mesa Miami -- https://lamesamiami.com/ -- is a unique Latin Fusion Cuisine dining experience for Breakfast, Lunch & Dinner.[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 - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Ave. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com BRUCE LACKEY: Imber Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON IMBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRUCE LACKEY, PAM LACKEY, LACKEY FAMILY TRUST, COLE SCHARTON, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE BUSINESS EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, MIGUEL PAREDES, RICK ROUSH, DEL THACKER, RICHARD DEYOUNG and RITCHIE TRUCKING SERVICE HOLDINGS, INC., and PEOPLE BUSINESS EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00004-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 14, 20251, will move the Court for an order certifying Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, and VIII in the Complaint as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiff brings these Claims on behalf of the following Class: "All participants in the ESOP from Dec. 31, 2018, or any time thereafter until Dec. 31, 2024 (unless the participant terminated without vesting) and those participants' beneficiaries other than the Excluded Persons." "Excluded Persons" means the following persons who are excluded from the Class: (a) the Defendants; (b) any fiduciary of the Plan; (c) the officers and directors of Ritchie Trucking or of any entity in which the individual Defendants have a controlling interest; (d) immediate family members of any of the foregoing excluded persons, and (e) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the Class Claims in the Complaint as a class action under Rule 23(b)(1) or Rule 23(b)(2), or, alternatively, if the Court finds that the elements of both Rule 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2) are not satisfied, under Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiff also moves the Court for an Order appointing R. Joseph Barton as Class Counsel, and Plaintiff Brandon Imber as Class Representative. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9yZREe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. THE BARTON FIRM LLP 1633 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 E-mail: jbarton@thebartonfirm.com BUBBLE BEAUTY: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Edery Herrera, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BUBBLE BEAUTY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04310 (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://hellobubble.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. BUBBLE BEAUTY, INC., operates the Hello Bubble online retail store, as well as the Hello Bubble 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 BURTON CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Morgan Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE BURTON CORPORATION d/b/a BURTON SNOW BOARDS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00366-gwc (D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order: -- granting final approval of class settlement, -- appointing the Plaintiff as class representative; and -- granting final approval of settlement. Under the terms of the Settlement, can claim the following benefits: 1. Reimbursement of up to $500 for ordinary loses; 2. Reimbursement of up to $5,000 for extraordinary loses; and 3. Reimbursement of Lost Time spent dealing with the data Incident at $21.25/hour up to 4 hours total. Burton provides recreational and apparel products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jwMAdZ at no extra charge.[CC] CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Ellis Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- TREMAINE ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiff v. CARDINAL HEALTH 200, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., an Ohio Corporation; CARDINAL HEALTH 100, LLC, an Indiana Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH 105, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH 108, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH 110, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH 112, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH 119, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH 124, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH 126, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH 127, INC., a Kansas Corporation; CARDINAL HEALTH 128, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH 249, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH 414, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CARDINAL HEALTH PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25ECV02722 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to pay all paid time off and vacation time owed upon separation; failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants with the job title of Warehouse Worker from January 5, 2025 to February 25, 2025. The Defendants operate as a global healthcare services and products company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raffi Tapanian, Esq. TAPANIAN LAW, APC 611 N. Brand Blvd Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 433-4977 Facsimile: (818) 484-2654 E-mail: raffi@tapanianlaw.com CARDLYTICS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- Cardlytics, 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 the securities class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia. On January 22, 2025, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Cardlytics and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, captioned Froess v. Cardlytics, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00279-MHC. The complaint, brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased our securities between March 14, 2024 and August 7, 2024, alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 13, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Subsequently, on March 7, 2025, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the plaintiff reserves the right to refile similar claims in the future. CAREDX INC: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Certification Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION No. 295 PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CAREDX, INC., PETER MAAG, and REGINALD SEETO, Case No. 3:22-cv-03023-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for administrative relief to: -- vacate the class certification deadline in revised case management and scheduling order; and -- seek a case management conference re the parties' class Settlement. On April 29, 2025, the Parties informed the Court on a joint basis via email that they reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the case, which settlement was publicly disclosed by Defendants on April 30, 2025. CareDx is a medical testing company that provides blood tests designed to detect organ transplant rejection. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CAlhKF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Jason C. Davis, Esq. Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. Heather G. Geiger, Esq. Nicole Q. Gilliland, Esq. Evelyn Sanchez Gonzalez, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com jdavis@rgrdlaw.com spenceb@rgrdlaw.com hgeiger@rgrdlaw.com ngilliland@rgrdlaw.com egonzalez@rgrdlaw.com – and – David R. Kaplan, Esq. Steven B. Singer, Esq. Rachel A. Avan, Esq. Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 505 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Suite 180 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Telephone: (858) 997-0860 Facsimile: (858) 369-0096 E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com ssinger@saxenawhite.com ravan@saxenawhite.com jsaltzman@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com The Defendants are represented by: Laura Leigh Geist, Esq. Barrington Dyer, Esq. Tariq Mundiya, Esq. Charles Cording, Esq. Brady Sullivan, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 858-7400 E-mail: lgeist@willkie.com bdyer@willkie.com tmundiya@willkie.com ccording@willkie.com bsullivan@willkie.com CARTER'S RETAIL: Luna Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Susana Luna, on behalf of others similarly situated v. CARTER'S RETAIL INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU020823C 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-01323-H-KSC. The Complaint asserts 11 causes of action for: "Failure to Pay All Wages Owed;" "Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages;" "Meal Period Violations;" "Rest Period Violations;" "Paid Sick Leave Violations;" "Unpaid Vacation Wages;" "Untimely Payment of Wages;" "Wage Statement Violations;" "Waiting Time Penalties;" "Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses;" and "Unfair Competition"[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Leo Q. Li, Esq. Romtin Parvaresh, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, California 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com lli@seyfarth.com rparvaresh@seyfarth.com CDHA MANAGEMENT: Callum et al. Sue Over Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- S.J., by and through her parent and guardian, KARICIA CALLUM, 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. 5:25-cv-02482 (E.D. Pa., May 15, 2025) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard private information. On or about September 11, 2024, the Defendants detected a suspicious activity in their IT network. However, it was only on March 14, 2025 that Defendants issued a notice of public disclosure and began sending notice letters to individuals impacted by the data breach. As a result of the Defendants' inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals, says the suit. Headquartered in Pennsylvania, CDHA Management, LLC is a dental support organization that provides support services to over 60 dental practices in six states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com CENCORA INC: Baldwin Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Baldwin, Jeffry Irwin, Jenny Irwin, Tim Thomas, and Greg Watt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CENCORA, INC., and HACKBARTH DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02610 (E.D. Pa., May 21, 2025), is brought on behalf of individuals who are current and former delivery drivers for Defendants challenging the unlawful misclassification of them as independent contractors instead of employees in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Every morning on which Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers were assigned to make deliveries, a Cencora truck delivered the pharmaceutical products Plaintiffs and other drivers had to deliver, along with the delivery manifests. The Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers had to follow rules and instructions promulgated by Cencora in a "Distribution Services Reference Manual" in performing their work, including rules for how to arrange pharmaceutical products in stores, delivery routes, and timeframes. Although Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers were classified by Hackbarth as independent contractors, these delivery drivers were employees of both Cencora and Hackbarth for purposes of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The work of Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers falls squarely within both Cencora and Hackbarth's usual course of business. Indeed, Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers are central both to Cencora's stated mission of "[r]eshaping how healthcare is delivered" and to Hackbarth's core business as a delivery company. The Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers are not engaged in independently established trades, occupations, professions, or businesses. Rather, delivery drivers rely upon Cencora and Hackbarth to assign them deliveries. The Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers work more than 40 hours per week because they routinely work shifts of 12-13 hours per day, 5-6 days per week. The Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers were not paid time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of 40 a week., says the complaint. The Plaintiffs delivered pharmaceutical and medical products on behalf of and at the direction of Cencora and Hackbarth in Tennessee. Cencora describes itself as "a leading pharmaceutical solutions organization" which is "reshaping how healthcare is delivered with new products and solutions."[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Email: ssb@llrlaw.com - and - Olena Savytska, Esq. Harold Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: osavytska@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com CERNER CORP: Carnahan Sues Over Alleged Breach of Private Data -------------------------------------------------------------- JILL CARNAHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, INC. and UNION HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00370-GAF (W.D. Mo., May 15, 2025) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the private information that was entrusted to them. On March 15, 2025, Defendant Oracle informed Defendant Union that it experienced a data breach involving unauthorized access to data hosted in its data migration environment. Defendant Oracle's investigation identified the unauthorized party's initial access as taking place sometime after January 22, 2025. However, it was only on April 21, 2025 that Defendant Union issued a notice of public disclosure and began sending notice letters to individuals impacted by the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. Headquartered in Kansas City, MO, Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health is a Delaware corporation that develops and provides healthcare solutions, including cloud infrastructure, data management, and analytics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206)-802-1272 Facsimile: (206)-299-4184 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com kswope@cpmlegal.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Faces Narayan Labor Suit in California Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Cinemark Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2025, that it is facing case captioned "Latishma Narayan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated vs. Cinemark USA, Inc., Century Theatres, Inc., et al." This class action lawsuit was filed December 27, 2024, in the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of San Mateo alleging violations of the California Labor Code for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay vacation wages, failure to maintain payroll records, and failure to reimburse necessary expenditures. Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a holding company. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Cinemark USA, Inc., operates in the motion picture exhibition industry, with theatres in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia and Paraguay. CIOX HEALTH: Harvey Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ciox Health, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Harvey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ciox Health, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02646 (E.D. Pa., May 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Miscellaneous. CIOX Health, LLC provides health care information solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Lapat, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (610) 212-6193 Email: aalapat@gmail.com CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Goldovsky Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citizens & Northern Bank. The case is styled as Alex Goldovsky, Glynn Frechette, Kristin Scharf, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Citizens & Northern Bank, Case No. 4:25-cv-00923-MWB (S.D. Cal., May 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Citizens & Northern Bank (C&N) -- https://www.cnbankpa.com/ -- offers a variety of banking solutions, including checking accounts, savings accounts, mortgages, business loans and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Goldin, Esq. GOLDIN LAW GROUP, P.C. 135 Old York Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 261-7505 Fax: (267) 865-6930 Email: jgoldin@glgphilly.com - and - Lisa Gerling Zummo, Esq. Patrick Zummo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK ZUMMO 950 Echo Lane, Suite 333 Houston, TX 77024 Phone: (713) 651-0590 COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces G.B. Suit Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- G.B., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. AND COINBASE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-04171 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2025) seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms they caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and all other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants on May 11, 2025, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected. While Defendants claim to have discovered the breach as early as May 11, 2025, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the data breach until they learned of it in the media on May 15, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action and asserts claims for negligence, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. CoinBase Global, Inc. is a multinational publicly traded company operating a cryptocurrency exchange that allows investors to buy, sell, and transfer over 250 cryptocurrencies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Neu Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN NEU and KEEFE JOHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. and COINBASE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04243 (N.D. Cal., May 16, 2025) is a class action against Coinbase for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information from cybercriminals. 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 including their 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 from Coinbase's inadequately protected network servers. 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, the Plaintiffs and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity. As such, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated customers, 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. is an American cryptocurrency exchange.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Financial Info, Squeo Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW SQUEO and ALEXANDER MIRVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC.; and COINBASE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04254-LB (N.D. Cal., May 16, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs and Class Members' personally identifiable information (PII) and financial information stored within Defendants' information network. On May 2025, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII and financial information as hosted with Defendants, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII and financial information. The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they are thus entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Coinbase, Inc. is a multinational publicly traded company operating a cryptocurrency exchange.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erika Angelos Heath, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (628) 246-1352 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - Philip M. Hines, Esq. HELD & HINES LLP 4815 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 531-9700 Facsimile: (718) 444-5768 E-mail: phines@heldhines.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Eisenberg Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL EISENBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. and COINBASE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04460 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, names, addresses, account data and government ID images. With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms they caused and will continue to cause him and all other similarly situated customers in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants on May 11, 2025, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected. According to the complaint, the Defendants disregarded the rights of Representative Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. The Defendants are a multinational publicly traded company operating a cryptocurrency exchange that allows investors to buy, sell, and transfer over 250 cryptocurrencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com - and - Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Brook Garberding, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 442-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com brook@emeryreddy.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Quito Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY QUITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. and COINBASE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00940 (W.D. Wash., May 16, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information stored within Defendants' information network, including, without limitation, names, addresses, account data and government ID images. Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms they caused and will continue to cause him and all other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants on May 11, 2025, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from state and federal statutes and regulations, and common law principles. The Defendants disregarded the rights of Representative Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, the suit alleges. The Defendants are a multinational publicly traded company operating a cryptocurrency exchange that allows investors to buy, sell, and transfer over 250 cryptocurrencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Brook Garberding, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 442-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com brook@emeryreddy.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com COINBASE INC: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Unsecured Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARY ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-04235 (N.D. Cal., May 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation: names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, financial account information, and Social Security numbers. In May 2025, unauthorized third parties accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII that was acquired in the data breach incident can be sold on the dark web, asserts the complaint. Their PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent acts and omissions and the failure to protect Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised because of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect their PII; (ii) warn of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; (iii) effectively oversee, supervise, and secure equipment and the database containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents; and (iv) adequately supervise and oversee its vendor with whom it shared Plaintiff's and the Class Members' PII. Coinbase, Inc. is a multinational publicly traded company operating a cryptocurrency exchange.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1100 Town & Country Road Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (657) 200-1403 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Gershzon Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON, KRISTIN DELLA, and JILL LIENHARD, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-04086-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 17, 2025, will move, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify the following class: "All persons who purchased, in the State of California, a Colgate or Tom's of Maine brand of toothpaste labeled with a "Recyclable Tube" claim and/or a chasing arrows symbol between Aug. 29, 2019, and the date of notice of pendency." The Class will pursue claims under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); the California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and for common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint (1) the Plaintiffs Mikhail Gershzon, Kristin Della, and Jill Lienhard as class representatives on all claims, and (2) Gutride Safier LLP as lead counsel. The Plaintiffs finally request that the Court order the parties to meet and confer and present this Court, within 15 days of an order granting class certification, proposed notice, and plan of notice to the certified class. The Defendant is a global consumer goods company, primarily known for its flagship Colgate and Tom's of Maine toothpaste brands. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wqj4vB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq. Francisco J. Rolon, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com rajiv@gutridesafier.com francisco@gutridesafier.com COUNT FINANCIAL: Federal Court Dismisses Breach Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Dew of Money Management, reports that in a brief ASX statement on May 27, the licensee said: "Today the Federal Court of Australia dismissed a claim brought as a class action against Count Limited's subsidiary Count Financial Limited (Count Financial). Count Financial defended the claim and denied any wrongdoing." It is understood the matter is related to whether Count Financial and its authorised representatives at Centenary Financial breached fiduciary and statutory duties or engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by continuing to receive commissions post-Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms between the relevent period of 21 August 2014-21 August 2020. The applicant was the corporate trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund (Hunter SMSF), operated for the benefit of Roslyn Hunter, Neal Hunter and their sons, Shaun Hunter and Dene Hunter. The case was brought by Piper Alderman. The applicant acquired four financial products following the provision of financial advice from Count Financial, and both upfront and trail commissions were payable on these. While it contended Count breached fiduciary duties, contravened related best interest and client priority statutory duties, and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, it did not contend the products were unsuitable or should not have been recommended. In the Federal Court of Victoria, Justice Halley said: "Count did not owe any fiduciary duties to the Applicant with respect to the Relevant Period Advice or was not otherwise liable for any alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the Applicant's Representatives. "The Applicant has not established that Count contravened its statutory supervisory obligations pursuant to s 961L of the Corporations Act in relation to the provision of any of the Relevant Period Advice; and "The Applicant has not established that Count engaged in any misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 1041H of the Corporations Act, s 12DA of the Australian Securities and Investments Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act) or s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) in Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) in relation to the provision of any of the Relevant Period Advice." The court ordered the amended originating application filed on 16 December 2020 otherwise be dismissed and the applicant is to pay the respondent's costs, as taxed or agreed. [GN] DAS ACQUISITION: Nash Allowed Leave to File First Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODERICK NASH et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. DAS ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00473-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Clark entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file first amended complaint. As a result, the Court orders the Plaintiffs to, no later than May 23, 2025, file a clean version of their amended complaint for docketing. The Court also orders that DAS, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), file "any required response to [the] amended pleading . . . within 14 days after service of the amended pleading." All deadlines in the Court's case-management order remain in effect. The Plaintiffs seek to modify their complaint to narrow their proposed collective definition for loan-processing employees in Count II, add a putative class claim under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and clarify some allegations. Because the parties do not oppose certain proposed amendments and because the Court agrees that Plaintiffs plausibly state a claim under the MMPA, the Court must freely give leave and, therefore, grants Plaintiffs' motion. DAS operates as a mortgage bank. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eJqz8N at no extra charge.[CC] DAVID SALINAS: Class Discovery Deadline in Taft Extended to June 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taft, et al., v. David Salinas et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00697 (S.D. Cal., Filed May 16, 2022), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting motion for extension of time to complete discovery. -- Class discovery deadline is extended from May 9, 2025, to June 9, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for class certification is extended from June 9, 2025, to Aug. 8, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.[CC] DESTINATION XL GROUP: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Destination XL Group, Inc. The case is styled as Ethan Radvansky, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Destination XL Group, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02777-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 19, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Destination XL Group, Inc. -- https://www.dxl.com/ -- is a leading retailer of Men's Big and Tall apparel with 290 retail and outlet store locations throughout the United States operated under the business subsidiaries DXL and Casual Male XL.[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 DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Bell Action Remanded to Cal. Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELAINYA BELL, on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02464-RSH-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand the Bell action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The Defendant's motion to consolidate is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. The Court holds that the Defendant has not met its burden of proving that the amount of controversy requirement has been met in this case. Even if the Court had jurisdiction over DeVry II, the Defendant could not invoke supplemental jurisdiction as a basis for the instant case's removal. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant failed to accurately track the hours she and other class members worked, instead improperly implementing a non-neutral rounding policy that resulted in unpaid minimum and overtime wages and insufficient credit for accrued sick leave. The Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes consisting of: (1) current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California four years prior to the filing of the action through the date of class certification; and (2) current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California four years prior to the filing of the action through the date of class certification "who were not properly reimbursed for business expenses." The Plaintiff worked as an Admissions Advisor for the Defendant from October 2023 to August 2024. DeVry is a private for-profit university in the United States. It mainly offers online programs. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O67SsT at no extra charge.[CC] DICKINSON COLLEGE: Class Certification Bids in Jurek Due Oct.17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVERY JUREK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, V. DICKINSON COLLEGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00408-JKM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Julia Munley entered an order that: 1) The stay of case management deadlines is lifted; and 2) Deadlines are reestablished in this case as follows: a. Discovery: Oct. 3, 2025; b. Plaintiff's Expert Reports: Oct. 3, 2025; c. Dispositive Motions: Oct. 17, 2025; d. Class Certification Motions: Oct. 17, 2025; and e. Defendant's Expert Reports: Oct. 31, 2025 Dickinson College is a private liberal arts college in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M0FvRT at no extra charge.[CC] DIDI GLOBAL: Seeks Permission to File Class Cert Sur-Reply ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting permission to file their Sur-Reply to the Plaintiffs' Amended Reply in further support of its Motion for Class Certification with the redactions. The Defendants further request that the following exhibits submitted with the Sur-Reply be filed under seal: (1) excerpts from the deposition of Professor Rajesh Aggarwal, Ph.D., and (2) the Expert Report of Professor Terrence Hendershott, Ph.D (Hendershott Report). Pursuant to the Court's order, the Underwriter Defendants are to submit a filing in support of permanent sealing of certain other documents by May 30, 2025. Defendants request that these documents be sealed subject to that additional briefing. The Defendants' Sur-Reply and the exhibits submitted in connection with that brief contain commercially sensitive and confidential information about their business and operations which contain information that has been properly designated as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order. Any disclosure of these documents may cause harm to Defendants. The Sur-Reply also includes references to documents that the Court has already permitted to be filed under seal. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pbph1T at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Corey Worcester, Esq. Renita Sharma, Esq. Sam Cleveland, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 295 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com samcleveland@quinnemanuel.com - and - Scott Musoff, Esq. Robert Fumerton, Esq. Michael Griffin, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-3902 Facsimile: (212) 777-3902 E-mail: scott.musoff@skadden.com robert.fumerton@skadden.com michael.griffin@skadden.com ECMD INC: $400K Settlement in Madison Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon Madison v. ECMD, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07887-MWC-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, appoints the Plaintiff as Class Representative, appoints The Myers Law Group, APC., David P. Myers, Jason Hatcher, and Andriana N. Bravo as Class Counsel, appoints Ilym Class Action Administrators as the Settlement Administrator, and approves the proposed class notice. Class Members shall have 60 days to opt out or object to the settlement. The Court sets the final approval hearing for Oct. 3, 2025. The Court sets the filing deadline for the final approval motion for Aug. 30, 2025. y Aug. 30, 2025, and in addition to the motion for final approval of class action settlement, the Court orders Plaintiff to file: -- A memorandum justifying the attorneys' fees and costs request and providing more information on the hours worked by Plaintiff's counsel and hourly rate so that the Court may calculate the lodestar figure to determine reasonableness. -- A memorandum justifying Plaintiff's enhancement awards as to the Gross Settlement Amount and the Individual Settlement Payments to Class Members, as well as declarations from Plaintiff supporting an award. On July 12, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this class action in the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, asserting wage and hour claims in violation of the California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code. The proposed Settlement Agreement resolves claims between Defendant and the settlement class, defined as: "All current and former California hourly non-exempt employees of the Defendant who were employed by the Defendant in California, including Drivers, at any time during the Class Period." The Class Period extends from Dec. 10, 2021 to Feb. 10, 2025, with a Class of approximately 177 Class Members. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay a non-reversionary gross settlement fund of $400,000 ("Gross Settlement"). ECMD is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials, stair systems, and parts, and hardwood flooring. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fb34t9 at no extra charge.[CC] EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Garceau Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN A. GARCEAU on behalf of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University DC Retirement Plan, individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries, v. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00755-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of the following class: "All persons, except the Defendant's fiduciaries and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between April 23, 2018 and the present (the "Class Period")." The case is similar to The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) breach of fiduciary duty actions against universities certified by courts throughout the country, including in "Henderson v. Emory Univ., No. 1:16-CV-2920-CAP, 2018 WL 6332343 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 13, 2018)" more recently in "Santiago v. Univ. of Miami, No. 1:20-CV-21784, (S.D. Fla. April 7, 2022)"(for settlement purposes). Embry-Riddle is a private university focused on aviation and aerospace programs. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UL0BPH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com EOUTDOORS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. eOutdoors, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05418 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2025) arises from 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. Due to eOutdoors' failure and refusal to remove access barriers to Tackledirect.com, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to its website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. Eoutdoors, Inc. owns and operates the commercial website, Tackledirect.com, which offers fishing tackle, gear, and accessories for sale. [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 FAMILY DOLLAR: Agrees to Ground Coffee Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports Family Dollar agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that its Chestnut Hill coffee products were deceptively marketed as able to brew a higher number of cups than was possible with the amount of coffee in each package. The Family Dollar Store settlement benefits consumers who purchased any Family Dollar proprietary brand ground coffee products, including Chestnut Hill coffee products, between Jan. 1, 2019, and April 15, 2025. According to the class action lawsuit, the amount of Family Dollar ground coffee in each package allegedly did not contain enough grounds to brew the number of cups advertised. Family Dollar is a discount retailer that sells a variety of products, including groceries, household supplies and personal care products. Family Dollar hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the false advertising class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Family Dollar Store settlement, class members can receive a voucher for one 9.6-ounce container of Chestnut Hill ground coffee. No proof of purchase is required to claim this benefit. If a large number of claims are filed, the settlement administrator may reduce the value of each voucher on a pro rata basis. The settlement also requires Family Dollar to work with its manufacturer to change the labeling on its coffee products. The company will either remove the claims about how many cups can be brewed per package or will revise the language to reflect verified testing results from a third-party laboratory. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 14, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Family Dollar ground coffee settlement is scheduled for July 21, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 21, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased any Family Dollar proprietary brand ground coffee product, including Chestnut Hill coffee products, between Jan. 1, 2019, and April 15, 2025. Potential Award Coffee product voucher Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/21/2025 Case Name Williams, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores LLC, Case No. CV-2021-900022.00, in the Alabama Circuit Court for Barbour County Final Hearing 07/21/2025 Settlement Website FDCoffeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Williams v. Family Dollar Settlement Administrator PO Box 2030 Portland, OR 97208-2030 (888) 721-0116 Class Counsel R. Brent Irby IRBY LAW LLC LOBER & DOBSON LLC LAW OFFICE OF TODD L. LORD Defense Counsel FOLEY HOAG LLP [GN] FASTAFF LLC: Response to Class Cert Bid in Egan Suit Restricted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA EGAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FASTAFF, LLC and U.S. NURSING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-03364-CYC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Cyrus Y. Chung entered an order granting motion to restrict the Defendants' responses in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and all exhibits, and Defendants' unopposed motion to restrict Plaintiffs' replies in support of their motions for class certification. Fastaff offers staffing services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bScYpE at no extra charge.[CC] FRONTIER AIRLINES: Appeals Court Order in Joyner Suit to 10th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Chiquita Joyner, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Frontier Airlines, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-CV-01672-SKC-TPO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants for labor violations. The appellate case is entitled Joyner, et al v. Frontier Airlines, et al., Case No. 25-1211, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 27, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CHIQUITA JOYNER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shelby Woods, Esq. Abigail Zinman, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS 518 17th Street, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80202 Defendants-Appellants FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., et al. are represented by: Michael F. Ryan, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 276-5175 - and - Christopher Ward, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER 321 North Clark Street, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 832-4500 GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Burkhart SAC --------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2025, that class action lawsuit captioned "Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al." is pending in the court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On January 12, 2024, plaintiffs moved for class certification and the company filed its opposition papers on February 23, 2024. On March 25, 2025, the company filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing a second amended complaint. In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC (GFIH) and Genworth Life Insurance company (GLIC) were named as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive relief. The company moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the company's motion to dismiss, which the company replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on the company's motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs' motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the court granted in part the company's motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to plaintiffs' claims). The court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, the company filed the company's answer to plaintiffs' amended complaint. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, the company moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial shareholders. On June 2, 2022, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial, Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the reorganization. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Faces TVPX Suit ---------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2025, that its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance company (GLAIC), was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned "TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance company." It is currently in the United States court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The appeal was orally argued on August 17, 2023 and on January 8, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit entered an order affirming the district court's order. On January 29, 2025, the company moved for rehearing by the panel and by the full court. On March 4, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit denied the motion for rehearing. On March 7, 2025, plaintiff refiled its complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2018, the company filed a motion to enjoin the case in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. We moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide class action settlement that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On December 6, 2018, the company moved the Middle District of Georgia for leave to file the company's counterclaim, which alleges that plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted the company's motion to enjoin and denied the company's motion for leave to file the company's counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the court of its appeal to the United States court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order granting the company's motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019, the company filed the company's notice of cross-appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the court of the company's cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order denying the company's motion for leave to file the company's counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia's opinion. On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. The company filed its response to plaintiff's appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on plaintiff's appeal and the company's cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit court of Appeals vacated the Middle District of Georgia's order enjoining Plaintiff's class action and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit court of Appeals did not reach a decision on Genworth's counterclaim. On June 30, 2021, the company filed in the Middle District of Georgia the company's renewed motion to enforce the class action settlement and release, and renewed the company's motion for leave to file a counterclaim. The briefing on both motions concluded in October 2021. On March 24, 2022, the court denied the company's motions. On April 11, 2022, the company filed an appeal of the court's denial to the United States court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 22, 2022, the company filed the company's opening brief in support of the appeal. Plaintiff filed its respondent's brief on September 20, 2022, and the company filed the company's reply brief on November 10, 2022. Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial, Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the reorganization. GEO GROUP: Adelanto Detainees' Suit Remains Stayed -------------------------------------------------- The GEO Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a class action lawsuit filed by immigration detainees at the Adelanto Facility remains stayed. The first of two State of Washington lawsuits, Nwauzor et al. v. GEO Group, was filed on September 26, 2017, by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017, by the State Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9, 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that State of Washington minimum wage laws should be enforced with respect to detainees who volunteer to participate in a VWP administered by GEO at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (the "Center") as required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under the terms of GEO's contract. The Center houses people in the custody of federal immigration authorities while the federal government is determining their immigration status. In October 2021, an unfavorable jury verdict and court judgment resulting in a combined $23.2 million judgment entered against the Company in the retrial of the two cases, which judgment amounts were subsequently increased by a further award against the Company of attorney's fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest in the amount of $14.4 million. Post-judgment interest is accruing on these judgments in accordance with Washington law. The trial court waived the necessity to post a supersedeas bond for the combined judgments and has stayed enforcement of the verdict and judgments while GEO's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is pending. Oral argument before the Ninth Circuit was held on October 6, 2022. On March 7, 2023, the Ninth Circuit certified certain state law questions to the Washington Supreme Court. Oral argument before the Washington Supreme Court was held on October 17, 2023. On December 21, 2023, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion answering the questions certified by the Ninth Circuit. Under the Ninth Circuit's March 7, 2023 order certifying the above questions to the Washington Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit resumed control and jurisdiction over the State of Washington lawsuits. On February 21, 2024, the United States Department of Justice filed its Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of GEO, arguing that the State of Washington judgments should be reversed because the Supremacy Clause precludes application of the Washington Minimum Wage Statute to work programs for federal detainees. In its Brief, the Department of Justice asserted that application of the Washington law independently contravened intergovernmental immunity because it would make federal detainees subject to provisions that do not apply, and never have applied, to persons in state custody, singling out a contractor with the federal government for obligations Washington does not itself bear. The Department of Justice also contended that the immigration statutory structure approved by Congress does not contemplate a role for states or state law in governing the VWP for federal detainees. On January 16, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion by a 2-1 vote affirming the lower court's decision. That Opinion includes a 24-page dissenting opinion. On February 6, 2025, GEO timely filed its Petition for Rehearing En Banc. On March 20, 2025, the United States filed an Amicus Brief with the Ninth Circuit in which it argued that the January 16, 2025 decision of the Ninth Circuit is incorrect in multiple respects, runs contrary to Circuit precedent, and creates significant tension with the case law of other circuits. The United States argued that the application of the state minimum-wage law to federal immigration detainees in the voluntary work program is preempted by a federal appropriation statute that sets the minimum allowance for detainee participants at $1 per day. Additionally, the United States argued that the application of the state minimum-wage law to federal immigration detainees likewise impermissibly discriminates against the federal government in violation of intergovernmental-immunity principles. A final mandate has not been issued by the Ninth Circuit and the appeal remains pending until resolution of the Petition for Rehearing. In California, a class action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017, by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court, Eastern Division of the Central District of California. The California lawsuit alleges violations of the state's minimum wage laws, violations of the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute, unjust enrichment, unfair competition and retaliation. The California court has certified a class of individuals who have been civilly detained at the Company's Adelanto Facility from December 19, 2014, until the date of final judgment. On March 31, 2022, the court entered a stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on the State of Washington lawsuits. GILEAD SCIENCES: Continues to Defend HIV Drugs Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Gilead Sciences, Inc., continues to defend itself against the class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 related to various drugs used to treat HIV, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "We, along with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("BMS"), Johnson & Johnson, Inc. ("Johnson & Johnson"), and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Teva") have been named as defendants in class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy. Plaintiffs allege that we (and the other defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The lawsuits, which have been consolidated, are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits seek to bring claims on behalf of direct purchasers consisting largely of wholesalers and indirect or end-payor purchasers, including health insurers and individual patients. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. In the second half of 2021 and first half of 2022, several plaintiffs consisting of retail pharmacies, individual health plans and United Healthcare, filed separate lawsuits effectively opting out of the class action cases, asserting claims that are substantively the same as the classes. These cases have been coordinated with the class actions. In March 2023, the District Court granted our motion to hold separate trials as to (i) the allegations against us and Teva seeking monetary damages relating to Truvada and Atripla ("Phase I") and (ii) the allegations against us and, in part, Johnson & Johnson, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to Complera ("Phase II"). In May 2023, we settled claims with the direct purchaser class and the retailer opt-out plaintiffs for $525 million, which we paid in the second half of 2023. The settlement agreements are not an admission of liability or fault by us. In June 2023, the jury returned a complete verdict in Gilead's favor on the remaining plaintiffs' Phase I allegations. In November 2023, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict, and in February 2024, the court entered final judgment on the Phase I verdict and certain summary judgment rulings. In September 2024, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate briefs challenging the Phase I verdict and those summary judgment rulings. We filed our responsive briefs in January 2025. Plaintiffs filed their reply briefs in March 2025. The court has stayed Phase II pending the appeal of Phase I. "While we intend to vigorously oppose the appeal and defend against the Phase II claims, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their appeal or Phase II claims, we could be required to pay monetary damages or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief in favor of plaintiffs," the Company stated. GILEAD SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Gilead Sciences, Inc., continues to defend itself against product liability class action lawsuit pending with a Missouri court, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "We have been named as a defendant in one putative class action lawsuit and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild. Plaintiffs allege that Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or Stribild caused them to experience kidney, bone and/or tooth injuries. The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in California and Missouri, involve approximately 22,000 active plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. The first bellwether trial in California state court was scheduled to begin in October 2022 but is currently stayed pending the conclusion of appellate proceedings in the California Supreme Court. In the California federal case, Gilead agreed to make a one-time payment of approximately $39 million to a group of plaintiffs (approximately 2,470 plaintiffs). The federal court set a trial date of March 2027 for the first bellwether trial of the remaining cases. Briefing is ongoing in the putative class action in Missouri regarding whether the court should certify the proposed class. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions, however, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages, which may result in a material, adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition, including in a particular reporting period in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable," the Company stated. GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Seeks Denial of Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL CENTARICZKI, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES, INC., KEELER PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC, CASTELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC, J MELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC, S&M MELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC, MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMONS APARTMENTS HS LP, MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMONS APARTMENTS MS LP, MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMONS APARTMENTS 235 LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00127-AR (D. Or.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying class certification because the Plaintiff did not comply with ORCP 32 H(2) "prior to the commencement of an action for damages" on behalf of a purported class. On Aug. 1, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her initial class action complaint against the Defendants in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. Gleiberman is a real estate investment firm founded in 1992. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8G9h4X at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Clifford S. Davidson, Esq. Jenna M. Teeny, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 601 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97204-3229 Telephone: (503) 624-6800 Facsimile: (503) 624-6888 E-mail: csdavidson@swlaw.com jteeny@swlaw.com GLOBAL E-TRADING: Bid to Limit Arrothers' Testimony Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER and CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC, d/b/a Chargebacks911, GARY CARDONE, and MONICA EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs Janet Sihler and Charlene Bavencoff's motion to limit the expert testimony of the Defendants' experts Troy Arrothers and Lisl Unterholzner . The Court declines to exclude Mr. Unterholzner's opinions or analysis regarding the spreadsheet or issues with the contained data. The Court agrees in part with the Plaintiffs that Ms. Unterholzner's opinion regarding the damages calculation for certain time periods or certain MIDs should be excluded. Ms. Unterholzner is legitimately raising the breaks in service and the numerous MIDs to question whether all refunds and chargebacks were deducted from Plaintiffs’ damages calculation. This analysis is proper for a rebuttal expert. The Court will not exclude it. The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action against Defendants on June 28, 2023. The operative complaint is the third amended complaint, in which Plaintiffs assert two RICO claims: (1) for violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c) (Count 1) — a substantive RICO claim; and (2) for violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(d) (Count 2) — a RICO conspiracy claim. On Aug. 13, 2024, the Court certified a nationwide class in this RICO case. Chargebacks911 provides chargeback management services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3oRI2G at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBE LIFE: Class Suit vs. Unit Proceeds to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------- Globe Life Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative class action litigation filed against its subsidiary, National Income Life Insurance Company, has proceeded to arbitration. On April 4, 2023, putative class action litigation was filed against Globe Life Inc.'s subsidiary, National Income Life Insurance Company ("National Income") in New York Supreme Court by plaintiffs Melissa K. Goppert, Sarah Valente, James O'Neill, Jennifer Abe, and Emily Herendeen ("Plaintiffs") (Goppert, et al. v. National Income Life Insurance Company, Index No. 153096/2023). Plaintiffs are former National Income independent sales agents who allege they should have been classified as employees and assert claims under New York state law on behalf of a putative class of former independent sales agents and individuals who trained to become independent sale agents since March 2017. Plaintiffs make claims under New York's Minimum Wage Law (NYLL § 633 and 12 NYCRR § 142-2.1); Overtime Compensation Law (NYLL § 633 and 12 NYCRR § 142-2.2); and "Spread of Hours" Law (12 NYCRR § 142-2.4) for the alleged failure to pay minimum wages and overtime pay, including for time spent in training, and attorney's fees and costs. National Income filed a motion to compel arbitration of each Plaintiff's claims on an individual basis, which the Court granted in full on January 11, 2024, and on February 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court's order. On November 21, 2024, the Court's order compelling arbitration was affirmed. GLOBE LIFE: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas -------------------------------------------------------- Globe Life 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 securities class action pending with the Eastern District of Texas. On April 30, 2024, a putative securities class action was filed against Globe Life Inc. and six of its current/former executives and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (City of Miami Gen. Emp. & Sanitation Emp. Ret. Trust, et al. v. Globe Life Inc., et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00376). On July 24, 2024, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel for the putative class of shareholders. The Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on October 4, 2024 that asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rules 10b-5(a), 10b-5(b), and 10b-5(c) promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Globe Life Inc.'s securities from May 8, 2019 through April 10, 2024. The Consolidated Complaint adds four additional executives as defendants and alleges that certain of Globe Life Inc.'s disclosures about financial performance and certain other public statements during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the litigation on December 3, 2024. Globe Life Inc. plans to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. Pursuant to Globe Life Inc.'s Restated Certificate of Incorporation and indemnification agreements with the named defendants, Globe Life Inc. has agreed to indemnify those defendants for all expenses and losses related to the litigation, subject to the terms of those indemnification agreements. The outcome of litigation of this type is inherently uncertain, and there is always the possibility that a Court rules in a manner that is adverse to the interests of Globe Life Inc. and the individual defendants. However, the amount of any such loss in that outcome cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Further, management cannot reasonably estimate whether an outcome on the putative class action will be resolved in the near term. Also pending in the Eastern District of Texas is a consolidated shareholder derivative suit that is closely related to the putative securities class action disclosed above (the "City of Miami Matter"). On November 7, 2024, Globe Life Inc. shareholder Jui Cheng Hsiao filed a shareholder derivative complaint against Globe Life Inc. as a nominal defendant, as well as certain current and former Globe Life Inc. executives and members of its Board of Directors. On November 14, 2024, Globe Life Inc. shareholder Gautam Jadhav filed a shareholder derivative complaint against the same set of defendants. Each shareholder derivative complaint asserts one claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants and alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Globe Life Inc. by causing or permitting Globe Life Inc. to make misleading statements about its performance and financial results. The allegations are substantially similar to the allegations made in the City of Miami Matter and derive from the Fuzzy Panda short seller report. On November 25, 2024, the two shareholder plaintiffs moved to consolidate the two actions into one action and the Court granted the motion on January 3, 2025 (In re Globe Life Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 4:24-cv-00993-ALM (E.D. Tex.)). The case is before the same Court as the City of Miami Matter. On January 16, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to stay such proceedings pending the Court's resolution of the motion to dismiss filed by Globe Life Inc. in the City of Miami Matter. The Court granted such joint motion to stay the proceedings on January 25, 2025. GOLDEN CORRAL: Settlement Class Certified in Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Golden Corral Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-00123-M-BM (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard E. Myers II entered a final approval order and judgment: The Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All individuals impacted by the Data Breach that occurred between Aug. 11, 2023 and Aug. 15, 2023 who were sent a notice of the Data Breach." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Litigation, and members of their direct families; (2) the Defendant, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest, and their current or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. 2. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. 3. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Gary M. Klinger of Mil berg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC as Class Counsel. 4. The Court, after careful review of the fee petition filed by Class Counsel, and after applying the appropriate standards required by relevant case law, grants Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees in the amount of $610,500. Reasonable costs and expenses of $14,620.84 are also awarded. Payment shall be made pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bXhGGY at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDMAN FINANCIAL: Leonard Allowed Leave to Take Class Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOLDMAN FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-20641-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo Ruiz II entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to take discovery and extend motion for default judgment deadline. The Plaintiff is permitted to conduct discovery, and the Plaintiff shall file a motion for default final judgment on or before Aug. 18, 2025. Despite the Defendant's failure to participate in this action, discovery is warranted for the purposes of assessing the prerequisites for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On Feb. 12, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Goldman Financial, Inc., and a summons was issued as to the Defendant. On April 28, 2025, the Court entered an Order Directing Clerk to enter default and requiring motion for default final judgment. Goldman is an investment banking firm that specializes in short and long term commercial lending. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O9ZDyV at no extra charge.[CC] GRAHAM BRUWER: Ramus Can File Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA RAMUS, v. GRAHAM R. BRUWER and GERARD E. METOYER, Case No. 1:23-cv-01770-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John P. Cronan entered an order granting the Plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his Article 3-A claim, the amended complaint must be filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all beneficiaries of the trust, and the Plaintiff shall either join all potential beneficiaries or seek class certification under Rule 23. In addition, the Plaintiff's amended complaint must plausibly allege diversity jurisdiction, including the citizenship (which, for individuals, means their state of domicile, not residence) of each party. The Plaintiff's amended complaint may also replead the Plaintiff's cause of action for fraud, provided that the Plaintiff believes in good faith that he can address the deficiencies identified in the Court's March 17, 2025, Opinion and Order, as well as plead additional causes of action arising out of the parties' dispute if appropriate. Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint on or before June 20, 2025. On March 17, 2025, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PO9XYL at no extra charge.[CC] GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, v. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered an order directing the filing of supplemental briefing: The Plaintiff and defendant are directed to file supplemental briefing addressing the following issues: Whether, in light of the text of the statute, precedent, and/or legislative history, plaintiff Civil Rights Department ("CRD") has authority to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); The relevance of 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e-5(c), 2000e-5(f)(1), 12117(a) to question (1); Whether 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e-5(c), 2000e-5(f)(1), as incorporated by section 12117(a), limit the role of state agencies to enforcement of state and local discrimination laws and deprive state agencies of the authority to bring suit under the ADA; Whether defendant's motion to deny class certification is moot; Whether defendant's motion to strike class or group claims is untimely; and Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims if only plaintiff’s state law claims remain. The Plaintiff and defendant shall each file a supplemental brief addressing only these issues no later than June 10, 2025. Grimmway grows, produces, and supplies agricultural products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4mxWm3 at no extra charge.[CC] GUNNAR OPTIKS: Clements Appeals BIPA Suit Ruling to 7th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM CLEMENTS is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled William Clements, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gunnar Optiks, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04634, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case arises from the data collection, data retention policies, and business practices of Gunnar, in connection with the embedded Virtual Try-On feature on its website, which captures, collects, stores, and uses customers’ biometric data without the notice or consent required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008. The appellate case is entitled William Clements v. Gunnar Optiks, LLC, Case No. 25-1890, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on May 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM CLEMENTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Nada Djordjevic, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten N. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Defendant-Appellee GUNNAR OPTIKS, LLC is represented by: Richard J. Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW FIRM, PC 1051 Perimeter Drive Schaumburg, IL 60173 Telephone: (847) 995-1205 HAMILTON POLICE: McCarley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------- Sean McCarley, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. THE CITY OF HAMILTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Case No. 1:25-cv-00348-MWM (S.D. Ohio, May 23, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendant's violation the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), seeking redress, including pay for all hours worked and unpaid overtime pay for the 3 years preceding the filing of this action. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in the workweek in which he received the bonus payment. Defendant did not include the bonus amount in Plaintiff's regular rate when determining the overtime rate for the workweek. Further, Plaintiff worked "overtime" during that period as "overtime" was defined in his applicable collective bargaining agreement. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's failure to include the bonus amount in Plaintiff's regular rate for overtime purposes, Plaintiff was not paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from August 8, 2016 to December 22, 2024 and was a sworn law enforcement officer who held the rank of Patrol Officer. The Defendant is a City police department located in Butler County, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robb S. Stokar, Esq. STOKAR LAW, LLC 9200 Montgomery Road Bldg. E. - Suite 18B Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: 513-500-8511 Email: rss@stokarlaw.com - and - Zachary Gottesman, Esq. GOTTESMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC 9200 Montgomery Road Building E - Unit 18B Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: (513) 651-2121 Email: zg@zgottesmanlaw.com HANDEL'S ENTERPRISES: Ice Cream Contains Synthetic Ingredients -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims Handel's has misrepresented its supposedly high-quality, "homemade" ice cream, given that the products allegedly contain multiple synthetic and "undesirable" ingredients. According to the 26-page lawsuit against Handel's Enterprises, LLC, the chain markets that its "homemade" ice cream has been "Made Fresh Daily" at each store "since 1945," with only the "best ingredients." The suit alleges that these representations are "patently false" and misleading to consumers because the ice cream, in fact, contains various synthetic dyes, preservatives and additives such as propylene glycol, FD&C #40, FD&C #1, citric acid, carrageenan, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and disodium phosphate. No reasonable consumer would consider these additives to be "fresh, high-quality ingredients," the case argues, claiming that Handel's hides the use of these "undesirable" components by deliberately keeping ingredient lists undisclosed. In particular, FD&C #40 and FD&C #1—also known as red dye 40 and blue 1 dye, respectively—are synthetic food dyes that were recently banned from being served in California schools beginning in 2027, the complaint says. Red dye 40 is believed to be linked to hyperactivity, including ADHD, and allergies, migraines and mental disorders in children, the filing reports. Blue 1 dye is associated with neurotoxicity, allergies, cancer, organ damage, reproductive problems and hyperactivity in children, among other health effects, the lawsuit states. On top of allegedly deceptive marketing promoting the belief that Handel's ice cream is made using traditional, home-style methods and high-quality ingredients, the claim that the products are "Made Fresh Daily" is also false, the suit asserts. Consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price for Handel's ice cream, the case contends. Customers would not have paid as much, or purchased the products at all, had they been aware of the undisclosed synthetic ingredients, dyes and preservatives, the complaint charges. The lawsuit looks to represent all California residents who purchased Handel's ice cream within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] HEARX WEST: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Romprey Due Sept. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN ROMPREY, v. HEARX WEST LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-02438-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Goddard entered a scheduling order setting discovery deadlines and class certification motion deadline as follows: 1. Any motion to join other parties, amend the pleadings, or file additional pleadings shall be filed by June 30, 2025. 2. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class discovery must be completed by Aug. 21, 2025. No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its pre- motion telephonic conference, unless the movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard, which can be found on the district court website. 3. The Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for class certification by Sept. 22, 2025. 4. Within three (3) days of a ruling on the motion for class certification, the parties must jointly contact the Court via email (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) to arrange a further case management conference. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YYDvC3 at no extra charge.[CC] HICKAM COMMUNITIES: Claims in Water Contamination Suit Narrowed --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i granted, in part, and denied, in part, Defendant Hickam Communities LLC's motion to dismiss in the case captioned as KASEY N. BENTLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HICKAM COMMUNITIES LLC, et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 24-00007 LEK-KJM (D. Hawai'i). This case concerns allegations of water contamination in military housing and involves complex issues of liability, necessary parties, and various tort and contract claims. On November 17, 2023, Plaintiffs Kasey N. Bentley, Kristofer W. Bentley, Phyllis A. Minor, and Christian Butler filed a class action complaint in state court against Hickam Communities LLC, which manages residential housing under agreements with the U.S. Navy. The complaint alleged that Hickam Communities provided contaminated water to residents due to fuel leaks from the Navy's Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility. The plaintiffs asserted multiple claims including negligence, strict liability, medical monitoring, private nuisance, unfair/deceptive trade practices (UDAP), unfair methods of competition (UMOC), breach of the implied warranty of habitability, trespass, breach of contract, and violations of Hawai'i's Landlord-Tenant Code (Chapter 521). The case was removed to federal court on January 4, 2024, pursuant to federal jurisdiction. Prior to this motion, the Court had already ordered the Bentleys and Minor to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance with their contractual agreements and stayed the class claims pending completion of those arbitration proceedings. As a result, only Butler's individual claims remained active before the Court and were at issue in the current motion to dismiss. Hickam Communities filed a motion to dismiss Butler's claims on two separate grounds. First, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7), Defendant argued that the U.S. Navy was an indispensable party that could not be joined, necessitating dismissal. Second, under Rule 12(b)(6), Defendant contended that several of Butler's claims failed as a matter of law and should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Regarding the Rule 12(b)(7) motion, the Court applied the three-step test under Rule 19 to determine whether the Navy was both a necessary and indispensable party. The Court found that the Navy was not a necessary party under Rule 19(a)(1)(A) because complete relief could be accorded among the existing parties without the Navy's participation. Specifically, the injunctive relief sought by Butler—such as warnings to tenants and prohibitions on new leases—could be granted without requiring the Navy to be a party to the litigation. The Court further determined that while the Navy had an interest in both the water system and the leased property, Hickam Communities could adequately protect the Navy's interests through a third-party complaint, as demonstrated in similar cases like Camp v. Ohana Military Communities. The Court explicitly rejected Hickam Communities' speculative argument that the Navy would not respond to a third-party complaint, noting that such speculation was insufficient to justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7). Since joinder of the Navy was feasible, the Court did not proceed to analyze whether the Navy was "indispensable" under Rule 19(b). Consequently, the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) was denied without prejudice, allowing Hickam Communities to potentially refile if future developments demonstrated that the Navy could not be joined. The Court's analysis of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion was more extensive and resulted in a mixed ruling. The Court addressed each challenged claim individually, relying heavily on its prior rulings in the related case of Camp v. Ohana Military Communities: -- Count II (Strict Liability): The Court dismissed this claim with prejudice, predicting that Hawai'i state courts would not impose strict liability on residential landlords for contaminated water. Citing Armstrong v. Cione and Leong v. Sears Roebuck & Co., the Court reasoned that landlords fundamentally lack the necessary control over water distribution systems and cannot adjust costs upstream in the same manner as product manufacturers, making strict liability inappropriate in this context. -- Count III (Medical Monitoring): The Court dismissed this claim with prejudice, declining to recognize medical monitoring as an independent tort under Hawai'i law. However, the Court clarified that Butler could still seek medical monitoring as a form of damages in connection with other viable claims, such as negligence. -- Count V (UDAP/UMOC Claims): The Court dismissed the UDAP claim with prejudice, holding that providing water as part of a rental agreement does not constitute a "good" or "service" under Hawai'i Revised Statutes Section 480-1. Following the precedent established in Lake v. Ohana Military Communities, the Court determined that lease agreements are fundamentally for housing, not water delivery. The UMOC claim was dismissed without prejudice because Butler failed to allege facts showing how Hickam Communities' conduct harmed competition in the relevant market, such as price distortions or reduced availability of leased housing. -- Count IV (Private Nuisance): This claim was dismissed without prejudice because the complaint did not plausibly allege that Hickam Communities' conduct was the legal cause of the water contamination. The Court found that Butler's conclusory assertions that Hickam "knowingly allowed" contamination were insufficient under the Iqbal pleading standard. -- Count VII (Trespass): Dismissed without prejudice because the complaint failed to adequately allege intentional conduct by Hickam Communities, which is a required element for trespass claims. While Butler argued that Hickam had a duty to remove contaminants after receiving notice, the Court noted that this theory was not properly pled in the complaint. -- Count IX (Landlord-Tenant Code Violations): The Court dismissed claims under Section 521-42(a)(1) without prejudice because Butler did not identify specific building or housing laws that were allegedly violated. The Section 521-10 (good faith) claim was partially dismissed to the extent it relied on health or safety violations, but Butler was permitted to amend this claim. Significantly, the Court denied dismissal for the Section 521-63(a) claim, allowing Butler to proceed on allegations that Hickam refused to permit tenants to terminate their leases without financial penalty after the water became uninhabitable. -- Count VI (Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability): The Court allowed post-November 2021 spill claims to proceed, citing allegations that Hickam failed to provide safe water or alternative housing after the contamination was discovered. However, pre-spill habitability claims were dismissed without prejudice because the complaint lacked specific facts showing that the residence was uninhabitable before the fuel spill occurred. Following this detailed analysis, the Court ordered that: (1) The Rule 12(b)(7) motion based on failure to join the Navy was denied without prejudice; (2) Counts II (strict liability), III (medical monitoring as an independent tort), and the UDAP portion of Count V were dismissed with prejudice, meaning these claims cannot be repleaded; (3) The UMOC claim (part of Count V), private nuisance (Count IV), trespass (Count VII), and portions of the habitability (Count VI) and Chapter 521 claims (Count IX) were dismissed without prejudice, allowing Butler an opportunity to correct the pleading deficiencies; and (4) Butler was permitted to proceed on the post-spill habitability claims and the Section 521-63(a) claim regarding lease termination penalties. The Court ordered Butler to file an amended complaint. The Court specifically cautioned Butler against adding new parties, claims, or theories without first obtaining leave of court, warning that non-compliant amendments could result in sanctions. This case continues to proceed on Butler's remaining claims, including negligence, breach of contract, and the surviving aspects of the habitability and Chapter 521 claims, with significant implications for military housing residents affected by water contamination issues. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OV13y5 from PacerMonitor.com. * * * Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and Hickam submitted its reply. Hickam seeks dismissal of the complaint, saying the Navy owns and operates the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Drinking Water System, which supplies potable water to certain residential housing communities in the Pearl Harbor-Hickam area in which Plaintiffs resided. Hickam admits that the Red Hill Aquifer was affected by fuel spills and/or leaks attributable to the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, which is owned, operated, and controlled by the Navy. Hickam denies it "owned, delivered and sold" water to Plaintiffs. To the extent the allegations refer to the Hawaii Department of Health, Hearings Officer's Proposed Decision and Order, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, December 27, 2021 (‘FOFCOL'), "the document speaks for itself," Hickam contends. “Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and on that basis, denies the same." "Plaintiffs' alleged claims and damages are the result of the negligence, fault, breach, or other wrongful conduct of another over whom Defendant has no control and/or for which Defendant bears no responsibility or liability," Hickam asserts. Defendant is represented by: Bruce D. Voss, Esq. Matthew C. Shannon, Esq. Jai W. Keep-Barnes, Esq. LUNG ROSE VOSS & WAGNILD Topa Financial Center 700 Bishop Street, Suite 900 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 523-9000 Facsimile: (808) 533-4184 Email: bvoss@legalhawaii.com mshannon@legalhawaii.com jkeep-barnes@legalhawaii.com HOLLEY INC: Awaits Ruling in Bid to Junk Kentucky Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Holley Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court ruling on its motion to dismiss the securities class pending with the Western District of Kentucky. A putative securities class action was filed on November 6, 2023, against the Company, Tom Tomlinson (the Company's former Director, President, and Chief Executive Officer), and Dominic Bardos (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (the "Complaint") and is captioned City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System v. Holley, Inc., f/k/a Empower LTD., Tom Tomlinson, and Dominic Bardos, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-148-S. On February 26, 2024, the court appointed City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System to serve as lead plaintiff to prosecute claims on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Holley securities between July 21, 2021, and February 6, 2023. On April 26, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended Complaint, adding Vinod Nimmagadda (the Company's Executive Vice President of Corporate Development and New Ventures) as a defendant. Lead plaintiff alleges that statements made regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects violated Sections 10(b), Section 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2024. On January 7, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a supplemented amended Complaint, which the court granted on March 20, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the supplemented amended Complaint on April 3, 2025. Briefing on the motion to dismiss will be complete on May 8, 2025. "Due to the early stage of this proceeding, we cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously defend against them," the Company stated. HOMERUN ELECTRONICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Munro Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ ZACHARY MUNRO and JUSTIN SCHMIED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOMERUN ELECTRONICS, INC., a Colorado corporation; IWIRED, INC., a Nevada corporation; VANGEO COMMERCIAL GROUP, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; VANGEO TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; MICHAEL L. VANN, an individual; JOHNATHAN GEORGE, an individual; and MARGARET GEORGE, an individual; Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01567 (D. Colo., May 16, 2025) is an action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all piece-rate employees holding comparable positions with different titles employed by the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the federal and state laws by failing to pay them and other piece-rate employees required minimum wages and overtime compensation and failing to pay for compensable pre- and post-shift work activities. The Plaintiffs were employed as installers at Defendants' Colorado Springs, Colorado location. The Defendants own, operate, and manage businesses which provide installation of audio-visual, home theatre, cable/internet, smart home automation, and other related home electronic products and systems.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew E. Swan, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. LEVENTHAL SWAN TAYLOR TEMMING PC 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 710 Denver, CO 80209 Telephone: (720) 699-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 E-mail: aswan@lstt.law sengelson@lstt.law IATSE LOCAL: Faces Class Action Over Nepotism in Union Membership ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that the largest crew union in New York was hit with a class action lawsuit on Tuesday, May 27, alleging that it has excluded hundreds of film and TV workers while reserving jobs for insiders. Ronald Bishop, an electrical technician, alleges that it took him 12 years to gain admission to IATSE Local 52. He was repeatedly informed that he had failed the union entrance exam, which the suit alleges was a "sham." He continued to work on shows including "Blue Bloods" and "Daredevil" as an "applicant." He was excluded from supervisory roles and watched other, less experienced workers get promoted ahead of him, the lawsuit states. Even after he qualified for the pension plan in 2018, he was still denied union membership for another six years, according to the suit. "During this period, Local 52 arbitrarily admitted hundreds of other individuals on the basis of nepotism and friendship, ahead of Mr. Bishop and putative class members," the lawsuit states. "These restrictions caused Mr. Bishop financial harm and emotional distress for the years he was improperly blocked from union membership." IATSE declined to comment. IATSE Local 52 was previously investigated by the New York State Attorney General's office, which concluded in 2014 that the admissions process was plagued by nepotism, which disproportionately excluded Black and Latino applicants. The union agreed to a settlement in which it paid a $475,000 fine and was subject to outside monitoring for three years. It did not admit wrongdoing. Local 52 agreed to another settlement in 2022, pledging not to illegally "bump" non-members off of production jobs in favor of cardholders. Bishop's class action lawsuit alleges that the union continues to exclude workers from membership even though they qualify for the health plan, which should make them automatically eligible. The suit also alleges that supervisory members still control who works and who doesn't, and follow "unwritten rules" that favor cardholders. "Cardholders can bump, or replace, noncardholders from productions when cardholders need work," the suit alleges. Bishop, who is Black, filed an individual discrimination suit against Local 52 and several studios, including Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and CBS, in September 2024. His attorney, Fred Charles, dismissed that suit and refiled a class action under federal labor law, after hearing about others of all races who were excluded from membership. [GN] IGLOO PRODUCTS: Strauss Files Mislabeling Suit Over Coolers ----------------------------------------------------------- DARIN STRAUSS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02764 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant misleads and deceives reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and the other Class members, by portraying the Igloo RECOOL 16qt Cooler as "biodegradable" when it contains paraffin wax and will not biodegrade within one year after customary disposal into the solid waste stream as required by the Federal Trade Commission. Additionally, Igloo markets and labels the Made in the USA Products as "Made in the USA" without qualification, even though Igloo imports raw material, key components and finished product, including, but not limited to, Evoprene handles, coolers, bamboo fiber storage boxes and propylene from China and Hong Kong, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Igloo Products, including but not limited to the RECOOL Product and several of the Made in the USA Products in 2023 and 2024 from a Target in Brooklyn, New York. Igloo Products Corp. manufactures and markets the RECOOL Product. The RECOOL Product is available for purchase throughout the United States in major retailers such as Walmart, Target and Kohl's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 261 Westchester Avenue Tuckahoe, NY 10707 Telephone: (646) 342-2019 E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT: Del Castillo Balks at Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMOR CARO DEL CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and IHEARTMEDIA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00538 (W.D. Tex., May 15, 2025) arises from Defendants' failure to safeguard the sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the Class members that was impacted in a data breach. Between December 24, 2024, and December 27, 2024, an unauthorized third-party viewed and obtained filed stored on systems of a number of Defendant IheartMedia + Entertainment's local stations. Despite learning early on that certain files containing sensitive private information were exposed in the data breach, the Defendants failed to immediately notify Plaintiff and other individuals impacted by the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants for: negligence; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; breach of fiduciary duty; and invasion of privacy. Headquartered in San Antonio, TX, IheartMedia + Entertainment, Inc. is a multimedia company that owns and operates radio stations and manages outdoor and indoor events. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com IMPERIAL RECOVERY: Failed to Pay Sufficient Wages, Shaw-Gaston Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DOMONIQUE SHAW-GASTON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. IMPERIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01259-E (N.D. Tex., May 16, 2025) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the law in that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at time and one half the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff sufficient wages under the FLSA, within the applicable statutory limitations period. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid Camera Car Driver from approximately September of 2021 until September of 2024. Imperial Recovery Services, Inc. owns and operates a towing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 11300 North Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH LEAVITT, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 1, Case No. 4:24-cv-01148-HEA (E.D. Mo), the Hon. Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only, the Class defined in the Settlement Agreement as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII may have been compromised in the Data Incident that impacted IBEW in March 2024, including all those individuals who received notice of the Data Incident." Excluded from the Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Litigation, and members of those judges' immediate families; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and its current or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid request for exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. The Court appoints Ralph Leavitt as the Class Representative for the Class. The Court provisionally finds that the Class Representative is similarly situated to absent Class Members and therefore typical of the Class and that he will be an adequate Class Representative. The Court finds the following counsel are experienced and adequate counsel and appoints them as Class Counsel for the Settlement: Cassandra P. Miller of Strauss Borrelli PLLC. Class Members who wish to opt out and exclude themselves from the Class may do so by notifying the Settlement Administrator in writing, postmarked no later than Sept. 5, 2025. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on October 20, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XF8WXR at no extra charge.[CC] IONQ INC: Wins Favorable Ruling in 4th Cir. in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Ionq, 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 won a favorable ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the securities class action lawsuit. In May 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Leacock v. IonQ, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306, was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the "Leacock Litigation") against the Company and certain of the Company's current officers. In June 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Fisher v. IonQ, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306-DLB (the "Fisher Litigation") was filed by a stockholder against the Company and certain of the Company's current officers ("IonQ Defendants"). Both the Leacock Litigation and Fisher Litigation, which have been consolidated into a single action, allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek damages. In September 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel for lead plaintiffs, and ordered lead plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 22, 2022. As part of the consolidated amended complaint, certain members of the Company's board of directors as well as other dMY-related defendants ("Additional Defendants") have been added as defendants to the case. On February 7, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On March 23, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed their omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss. On April 26, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants each filed a reply in support of the motions to dismiss. On September 28, 2023, the District Court of Maryland issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' claims against the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case. On October 26, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for post-judgment relief, seeking to amend their consolidated amended complaint. The IonQ Defendants and Additional Defendants filed oppositions to plaintiffs' motion on December 1, 2023, and plaintiffs filed their reply on January 8, 2024. On July 10, 2024, the plaintiffs' motion for post-judgment relief was denied and the District Court of Maryland directed the clerk to close the case. On July 26, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to review the trial court's decision. Plaintiffs filed their Opening Brief in the Fourth Circuit on September 9, 2024. A response brief by IonQ Defendants was filed on October 8, 2024 and plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on October 29, 2024. Oral argument in the Fourth Circuit occurred on January 31, 2025. On April 8, 2025, the Fourth Circuit held for the IonQ Defendants in a published opinion. IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Sundaram Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ KARTHIK TRICHUR SUNDARAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., FREDERICK G. VOGT, JEAN-MARC BELLEMIN, IGOR P. BILINSKY, and DANIEL G. KIRBY, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04177 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Iovance securities between August 8, 2024, to May 8, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Iovance's expected revenue for the fiscal year 2025. According to the complaint, the Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in their continuously reaffirmed forecast to achieve product revenue of $450 to $475 million in the first full calendar year of Amtagvi sales. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Iovance's growth potential; notably, that it was not equipped to generate and drive demand or was otherwise ill-equipped to capitalize upon the purported existing demand for its treatments through its network of approved treatment centers, says the suit. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Iovance's revelation. The price of Iovance's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $3.17 per share on May 8, 2025, Iovance's stock price fell to $1.75 per share on May 9, 2025, a decline of about 44.795% in the span of just a single day, the suit alleges. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes cell therapies using autologous tumor infiltrating lymphocyte for the treatment of metastatic melanoma and other solid tumor cancers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com JBS FOODS: Settles Price Fixing Class Action Suit for $83MM ----------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Hansen, writing for News From The States, reports that an $83 million settlement in a large class action lawsuit led in part by a Montana nonprofit against JBS Foods and other meat processing companies is accepting claims from cattle producers. The lawsuit alleged price fixing among four companies that control almost 85% of the meat processing industry in the country -- including JBS Foods, a U.S. subsidiary of a Brazilian firm. The lawsuit also names Tyson Foods, Cargill and National Beef. In court documents, JBS denied wrongdoing. "JBS denies Cattle Plaintiffs' allegations, denies any and all wrongdoing in connection with the facts and claims that have been or could have been alleged against it in the Action, and asserts that it has a number of valid defenses to Cattle Plaintiffs' claims," a court filing stated. The lawsuit was brought by the Farmers Union and the Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America, which is known as RCALF-USA. The legal fund, RCALF-USA, is a Montana-based nonprofit. The legal battle with the companies in the suit is likely not over, said Walt Schweitzer, the president of the Montana Farmers Union. Tyson, Cargill and National Beef have yet to conclude their parts of the suit in court. "I do anticipate more developments with the other three (defendants), but it's in the court system, and it's anybody's guess how quickly it'll proceed," Schweitzer said. The suit covers those who sold cattle to JBS Foods and its subsidiaries between June 1, 2015, to Feb. 29, 2020. A website, www.cattleantitrustsettlement.com, has been set up to handle the claims, which have to be filed by Sept. 15, 2025. "We filed this case after witnessing the inexplicable collapse of fed cattle prices beginning in 2015," R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard said in a press release, "Our case has been working its way through the court for six years now, and we will continue in our effort to recover as much as we can for American cattlemen." Montana is a beef producing state and there are currently about 1.2 million beef cattle in the state. Including calves, that totals more than 2 million head. Schweitzer said the monopolization of the cattle industry was the biggest issue facing it. "Price gouging, not just the producers, but the consumers, has been an ongoing issue for really decades, and Farmers Union has facilitated other lawsuits against the big four in the past. This is the farthest we've gotten, as far as settlement and discovery documents," Schweitzer said. "So we're getting to the bottom of it, but there's still a lot of discovery left to be made." The class action lawsuit alleges the defendants "conspired to fix and suppress" prices of fed cattle, or beef cows that are fed a concentrated diet to add weight before slaughter. Companies like JBS Foods and other meatpackers make their money on the "meat margin," or the difference between what they buy the cattle for and what they sell the processed meat for. Because it takes time for cattle to be old and large enough to be slaughtered, the price of meat does not move very fast. "Beef demand is also relatively insensitive to changes in price (and) the meat margin is very sensitive to changes in aggregate industry slaughter levels," the complaint states. "Consequently, Packing Defendants can increase the meat margin, and thus their profitability, by working cooperatively to reduce their respective slaughter volumes, thereby depressing the price of fed cattle." Using a system of complex contracts, the JBS Foods lawsuit alleges the companies artificially lowered the price of beef. The contract system and the formulas to set the sale price are relatively new, Schweitzer said, noting they were essentially unheard of 40 years ago. The packing companies get most of their meat -- about 70% -- through contracts at a price to be determined at delivery. Those prices in part come from the "weekly cash cattle market," which represents about 25% of beef sales. The contracts are also dated, meaning companies could manipulate the cash price of cattle on days when cattle on contract are brought in to be slaughtered. The companies named in the suit "cratered" the cash cattle trade, the complaint alleges. "Defendants used their market power and the relatively small cash cattle trade to their advantage and embarked upon a conspiracy to depress fed cattle prices that began no later than January 2015 and continues through to this day," the suit alleges. The suit also says the companies let meatpacking plants go idle and that the defendants imported foreign beef cattle, "after it became uneconomical for them to do so." Cattle production is big business in America, and more than 2.5 million cows are slaughtered every month, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It takes about 15 to 24 months for a cow to go from birth to slaughter. JBS is also politically active. The company donated $5 million to Trump's inauguration, Forbes reported, far more than Meta, Amazon, Uber and even Nvidia. JBS, the largest meatpacking company in the world, was recently tagged with a $64 million fine in Brazil for raising cattle on illegally deforested land in the Amazon, although it did not admit wrongdoing in the case. The company has been beset by other legal woes and two billionaire shareholders went to jail in Brazil after bribing 1,800 politicians. [GN] JOMASHOP INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Discount Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Jomashop Inc. Why: The plaintiff claims Jomashop advertises false discounts on its website. Where: The Jomashop class action was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Jomashop advertises false discounts on "nearly every product" sold through its website. Plaintiff Madison Levin claims Jomashop uses a false reference pricing scheme to advertise fictitious prices and corresponding phantom discounts on its products. "Companies like Jomashop drastically benefit from employing a false reference pricing scheme and experience increased sales," the Jomashop class action states. Levin argues Jomashop's pricing scheme is unlawful, unfair and fraudulent, intended to mislead consumers into believing they are receiving a good deal, thereby inducing them into making a purchase. Levin wants to represent a nationwide class and California subclass of consumers who purchased one or more products from Jomashop's online store that were allegedly deceptively represented as discounted from false former reference prices. Jomashop uses 'substantially higher' reference prices, class action alleges Levin claims Jomashop advertises its products as being on sale by marking them down from a "substantially higher" original or reference price, which is prominently displayed to the customer as being the supposed original price. This creates the false impression that the advertised reference price is an original, regular or retail price at which Jomashop usually sells the item or previously sold the item in the recent past, the Jomashop class action alleges. "As a result, Jomashop falsely conveys to customers that they are receiving a substantial markdown or discount, when in reality, the alleged discount is false and fraudulent," the Jomashop class action states. Levin claims Jomashop is guilty of violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act and of fraudulent concealment. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory damages for herself and all class members. Multiple class action lawsuits were recently filed against companies, including Sunglass Hut, accusing them of using deceptive sale prices to mislead consumers into thinking they were getting better deals than they actually were. The plaintiff is represented by Kevin J. Cole and W. Blair Castle of KJC Law Group APC. The Jomashop class action lawsuit is Levin v. Jomashop Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02523, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] JOSH WANDER: General Pretrial Management Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEADENHALL CAPITAL PARTNERS LLP, et al., v. WANDER et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03453-JGK-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices, letters and letter-motions are limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xtZJx9 at no extra charge.[CC] KIRSCH BUILDER'S SUPPLY: Storey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Danyell Storey, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Kirsch Builder's Supply, Incorporated, Ronald Kirsch and Kim Townsend as individuals, Case No. 1:25-cv-05810 (N.D. Ill., May 23, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter "FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (hereinafter "IMWL") and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), to recover unpaid wages for overtime pay and/or minimum wage pay due to the above described policy of not paying overtime and/or "rolling" overtime hours from week to week. The Plaintiff alleges individually and on behalf of herself that she, under both federal and state wage laws, is entitled to be paid for all hours worked and to receive minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours worked and/or receive time and half for all hours worked over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff also bring claims that Defendants current policy, procedure and practice of claiming Plaintiff was "salaried" (or Exempt) to avoid paying overtime wages at an overtime rate, however Plaintiff was not paid a salary, in that Defendants paid Plaintiff by the hours worked, not a set amount that is pre-determined each week. However, even if Plaintiff is paid a salary, which Plaintiff states she was not, Plaintiff duties were not sufficient to sustain a claim of Exemption, as Plaintiff's manual labor and non-managerial work overwhelmed Plaintiff's "exempt" work time; thus Plaintiff was misclassified, if she was paid a salary, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Illinois and a former employee of the Defendant. The Defendant provides services and products to customers from other states thus engages in the stream of commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin ILL 60177 Phone: 630-464-9675 Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART: Sheehan Appeals R&R Adoption to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- SPENCER SHEEHAN is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Kandas Dukas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij, NV, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-7962, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with regards to KLM Royal Dutch Airlines which tells potential customers of its commitment to "Fly Responsibly." On Apr. 4, 2025, Judge Robert W. Lehrburger filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) to Honorable Ronnie Abrams recommending that KLM be awarded $80,160 in reasonable attorney's fees, and $3,300.50 in costs. On Apr. 23, 2025, Judge Abrams entered an Order adopting Judge Lehrburger's R&R. After careful consideration of the record, the Court finds no error and thus adopts the careful and well-reasoned R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, Spencer Sheehan is ordered to pay KLM $80,160 in attorney fees and $3,300.50 in costs as sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment for KLM in the amount of $83,460.50 and close this case. The appellate case is entitled Dukas v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij, NV, Case No. 25-1332, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 27, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Appellee KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ, NV is represented by: Keara M. Gordon, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 LASERAWAY LLC: Shiraev Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LASERAWAY, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dennis Shiraev, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LASERAWAY, LLC, DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC25625617 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." LaserAway -- https://www.laseraway.com/ -- is the nation's leader in aesthetic dermatology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omar G. Qureshi, Esq. QURESHI LAW PC 700 Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-786-3478 LIGHT & WONDER: Automatic Card Shufflers Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Light & Wonder, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the automatic card shufflers lawsuit against it remains pending. On April 2, 2021, Casino Queen, Inc. and Casino Queen Marquette, Inc. filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S. patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the defendants, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiffs' costs of suit, including attorneys' fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 11, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, which the court denied on May 19, 2022. Discovery closed on December 1, 2023. On February 16, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which is pending. Also on February 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and a motion for class certification, which are pending. The court set a hearing for May 8, 2025 on the pending motions for summary judgment. "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company stated. LIGHT & WONDER: Class Deal Pending Approval in Suit vs. SciPlay --------------------------------------------------------------- Light & Wonder, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a class action settlement is pending approval in the lawsuit filed against the Company's subsidiaries, SciPlay Corporation and SciPlay Games, LLC. On January 9, 2025, plaintiffs Timothy Sornberger, Donovan Roberts, Matthew Sprinkle, Hope Murnaghan, Luke Whitney, Prince Imanifest Allah Beautiful, and Christopher Ebersole filed a putative multistate class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries, SciPlay Corporation and SciPlay Games, LLC in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of anti-gambling statutes of the states of Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. The plaintiffs seek to represent putative classes of individuals in their respective home states who spent money playing SciPlay's online social casino games during various periods of time. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, including recovery of monies allegedly lost by players of SciPlay's online social casino games in the enumerated states, the award of interests and costs, attorneys' fees and expenses and unspecified other relief. On January 17, 2025, the parties filed a notice of a proposed class settlement and a motion to stay the deadlines to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. On January 17, 2025, the court stayed all deadlines in the action, pending the filing of a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. LOBLAW COS: Judge OKs $500MM Bread Price Fixing Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that some Canadian shoppers may soon receive cash from a class-action lawsuit that accused Loblaw and its parent company George Weston of engaging in an industry-wide scheme to fix the price of bread. Ontario Superior Court Judge Ed Morgan approved a $500-million settlement in the case on May 7, saying the money put forward by the grocery companies was "an excellent and fair result for all concerned." "It is in the best interests of the class as a whole," he said in a written decision. "In my view, it falls squarely within the zone of reasonableness." The settlement he approved includes a combined $404 million to be paid by Loblaw and George Weston. The remaining $96 million is accounted for through a gift card program Loblaw began in 2018 and ran through 2019 in hopes of making amends with customers who paid about $1.50 more per loaf of bread. Once legal fees and other court expenses are paid, 78 per cent of the funds will be allocated to shoppers in Ontario with the remaining amount headed for people in Quebec. Customers who bought bread between January 2001 and December 2021 and did not previously take a gift card from Loblaw will eventually receive up to $25. If there is still money left over after that distribution, funds will be divided among anyone who claimed the gift card. Approval ends one chapter of price-fixing saga Morgan's decision ends one chapter in a saga that has lobbed allegations at the country's biggest grocers, including Metro, Sobeys, Walmart Canada, Canada Bread and Giant Tiger. While these players have denied their participation in an alleged scheme to co-ordinate the price of bread back to 2001, Loblaw and George Weston told the Competition Bureau they were part of the practice in 2015. Their admission wasn't publicized until 2017. They then offered a $25 gift card to try to compensate customers, but shoppers weren't appeased and in December 2019, a Quebec class action was filed against them and the other grocers. A Quebec court will hear arguments around whether to accept the Loblaw and George Weston settlement on June 16. The Ontario class action was filed by Strosberg Wingfield Sasso LLP in December 2021 but only reached its $500-million settlement last year. "The parties do not have to do much to convince me that the litigation has been hard fought on all sides," Judge Morgan said in his decision. Asked for comment on the settlement's approval, Loblaw spokesperson Catherine Thomas pointed The Canadian Press to a 2024 statement that said, "We sincerely apologize" for involvement in the arrangement and "have taken a number of steps since that time to ensure this doesn't happen again." "We know we have more to do to regain the trust of our customers and we're committed to doing that," the statement said. A George Weston spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The agreement they put forward resolves all national bread price-fixing claims they faced or could face and includes assurances that they will co-operate with claims being pursued against the remaining grocers who did not offer a settlement. Few objections to settlement offer The offer Loblaw and George Weston made garnered four objections and 475 opt-outs, which Judge Morgan said "are very small numbers in view of the estimated 20 million-plus class members." No one who objected to the settlement appeared in court to explain their views, but a review of their written submissions showed they were fighting the settlement because they would like more money, Morgan said. "None of the objectors chose to speak at the hearing of the settlement motion, but a review of their written objections indicates that they have no principled grounds for objecting to the settlement other than that they would like more money," Morgan wrote. "While I sympathize with that sentiment, I am not in a position to compel that the settlement fund be increased, nor am I inclined to reject the settlement based on a small handful of class members who would like more." [GN] LONGHORN PIZZA: Sprague Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK JAMES SPRAGUE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. LONGHORN PIZZA, INC., PRIMA PIZZA, INC., MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA, INC., SOUTHSIDE PIZZA, INC. and BRENT HAMILL, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01235-S (N.D. Tex., May 15, 2025) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores. According to the complaint, the Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately January 2022 to April 30, 2025 as a delivery driver and conducted work on Defendants' behalf within this District. The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 11300 North Central Expressway, Ste 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com LOYA CASUALTY: Class Cert Bid in Marroquin Continued to July 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose Marroquin and Juan Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Loya Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 5:23-cv-00927-SPG-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order granting stipulation to continue hearing on motions for summary judgment and class certification for 60 days. -- The Court grants the stipulation and orders that the hearing set for May 21, 2025, on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is continued to July 23, 2025. The Defendant is a car insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bCpxrM at no extra charge.[CC] MARQETA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Marqeta 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 the putative class action lawsuit pending in the Northern District of California On December 9, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned Wai v. Marqeta, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-08874 (N.D. Cal.), was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuit asserts that Defendants made false or misleading statements relating to the Company's performance or revenue and gross profit expectations in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On December 10, 2024, a second putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned Ford v. Marqeta, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-08892 (N.D. Cal.), was filed in the same Court against the same Defendants alleging violations of the same federal securities laws. The second lawsuit asserts similar theories of liability as the first lawsuit. Both lawsuits seek to recover damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock during their respective putative class periods. The Securities Actions have been consolidated into one consolidated securities litigation captioned In re Marqeta, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 24-08874-YGR (N.D. Cal) and the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel in the matter. On April 10, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which alleges a putative class period of between February 28, 2024 and November 4, 2024. The Company and the other Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint by May 15, 2025. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ESTEBAN CAMAS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03308-RMR-KAS (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its expedited motion for a short extension of time to file its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The proposed new deadlines are as follows: -- Marriott's Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification due: May 30, 2025. -- Plaintiff's Reply to Marriott's Opposition due: June 27, 2025. Marriott is a multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands, including hotels, residential, and timeshare properties. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YZLugO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael P. O'Day, Esq. Ellen E. Dew, Esq. William W. Reichart III, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 650 S. Exeter St. Suite 1100 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 580-3000 Facsimile: (410) 580-3001 E-mail: michael.oday@us.dlapiper.com ellen.dew@us.dlapiper.com wes.reichart@us.dlapiper.com MONAT GLOBAL CORP: Kreifels Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rachel Kreifels and Ashley Marin, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONAT GLOBAL CORP., RAYNER URDANETA, LUIS URDANETA, LU URDANETA, FRANCISCO JAVIER URDANETA, MARJORIE MUNOZ, CARLA HERNANDEZ, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01476545-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04713. The Complaint alleges nine causes of action against Defendants in connection with the core allegation (which Defendants deny) that, under California law, Plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide meal periods; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to keep payroll records; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lawrence B. Steinberg, Esq. Kathryn B. Fox, Esq. Rochelle L. Calderon, Esq. BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-1730 Phone: (213) 891-0700 Fax: (213) 896-0400 Email: LSteinberg@buchalter.com kfox@buchalter.com rcalderon@buchalter.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Wright Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jeanna Wright, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-00137 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-04432-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 254 Court Ave., Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-2000 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MOSAIC COMPANY: Continues to Defend Radiation Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The Mosaic Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the lawsuit asserting claims related to elevated levels of radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida. On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc., and two unrelated co-defendants. The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly due to phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring decades ago. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a medical monitoring program funded by the defendants. On October 14, 2021, the court substantially granted a motion to dismiss that the Company filed late in 2020, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. On November 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and, in response, Mosaic filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with prejudice on November 15, 2021. On December 23, 2021, plaintiffs opposed that motion and Mosaic replied to that opposition on January 26, 2022. On April 6, 2022, the court heard argument on the motions to dismiss filed by Mosaic and each other co-defendant. In late March 2023, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss. "The Company intend to continue to vigorously defend this matter," the Company said. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Settlement Proposed in BIPA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Malaysian Reserve reports that if you are or were an Illinois resident or were present in Illinois and your photo was taken or used by law enforcement, you may be eligible for payment from a class action settlement. This notice is to inform you that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit relating to facial recognition technology provided to law enforcement and used to search galleries of booking photos. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants Motorola Solutions, Inc. and Vigilant Solutions, LLC violated an Illinois law called the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") by allegedly collecting, storing, using, and disclosing individuals' biometric data in connection with providing the FaceSearch technology and access to a booking photo gallery to law enforcement customers, allegedly without complying with the law's requirements. The case is Simmons v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2024-L-010142, currently pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The proposed Settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing by Defendants. Defendants deny that they violated the law. The Court has not decided who is right or wrong. Am I a Part of the Settlement? You may be a Settlement Class member if your face appeared in images processed by the FaceSearch technology at any point in time up to April 9, 2025 and you: (a) are or were an Illinois resident; or (b) were present in Illinois at the time the image(s) was taken or processed. What this means is that if you are or were an Illinois resident or were present in Illinois and your photo was taken or used by law enforcement, you may be part of the Settlement. If so, you are eligible to submit a claim to receive cash benefits from this Settlement. More information about this Settlement is available online in the detailed web notice at www.simmonsBIPAsettlement.com. What Does The Settlement Provide? If you're eligible and the Court approves the Settlement, you can file a claim to receive a cash payment. The amount of such payment is estimated to be approximately $200–$550, but could be more or less depending on the number of valid claims submitted. This amount would be an equal share of a $47,500,000 fund that Defendants have agreed to create, after the payment of settlement expenses, attorneys' fees, and any incentive awards in the litigation approved by the Court. How Do I Get My Payment? Visit the Settlement Website, www.simmonsBIPAsettlement.com, and submit a Claim Form online. You can also call 1-855-688-8844 to request a paper copy of the Claim Form. All Claim Forms must be postmarked or submitted online by July 29, 2025. What are My Options? You can do nothing, comment on or object to any of the settlement terms, or exclude yourself from the settlement. If you do nothing, you won't be able to sue Motorola Solutions or Vigilant or certain related companies and individuals in a future lawsuit about the claims addressed in the settlement. If you exclude yourself, you won't get a payment but you'll keep your right to sue Motorola Solutions and Vigilant on the issues the settlement concerns. You must contact the settlement administrator by mail or e-mail to exclude yourself. You can also object to the settlement if you disagree with any of its terms. All Requests for Exclusion and Objections must be received by July 8, 2025. Do I Have a Lawyer? Yes. The Court has appointed lawyers from the law firm Loevy & Loevy as "Class Counsel." They represent you and other settlement class members. The lawyers will request to be paid from the total amount that Defendants paid into the Fund. You can hire your own lawyer, but you'll need to pay that lawyer's legal fees. The Court has also chosen Irene Simmons and Rodell Sanders -- class members like you -- to represent the Settlement Class. When Will the Court Approve the Settlement? The Court will hold a final approval hearing on August 20, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Joel Chupack in Room 2601 at the Richard J. Daley Center, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604. The Court will hear objections, determine if the settlement is fair, and consider Class Counsel's request for fees and expenses of up to 34% of the settlement fund and incentive awards of $7,500. Class Counsel's request will be available on the Settlement Website. Where Can I Get More Information? This notice is only a summary. For more information, visit: www.simmonsBIPAsettlement.com [GN] NATIONAL HOCKEY: Court Dismisses Conspiracy Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports the National Hockey League and Canada's top junior league clubs have defeated a lawsuit in U.S. court that claimed they conspired to restrain employment opportunities and compensation for players aged 16 to 20. U.S. District Judge Tana Lin in Seattle ruled, on Friday, May 23, that a labor union and players who filed the proposed class action had not shown that their claims had enough ties to the United States to allow the antitrust case to move forward. The judge dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be refiled. The order did not address the merits of the claims. In the lawsuit, two former junior league players alleged the NHL and Canadian hockey clubs violated U.S. antitrust law by agreeing not to compete among each other for prospective and current junior hockey players. The NHL and Canadian defendants had denied any wrongdoing. Jeffrey Shinder, an attorney for the plaintiffs, in a statement said they disagreed with the judge's ruling. "We intend to keep fighting to protect these boys and we are considering the full range of available responses," Shinder said. Lawyers for NHL and CHL did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit alleged the Canadian leagues illegally divided up exclusive territories across North America, controlling the recruitment and drafting of young hockey players. Junior hockey leagues are seen as a path to professional play in the NHL, which features teams in the United States and Canada. The NHL in seeking the dismissal of the lawsuit said in a court filing, opens new tab that the "overwhelming majority" of the complaint did not focus on the league, but instead challenged alleged anticompetitive conduct in Canada. The CHL told Lin, opens new tab that the lawsuit belonged in Canada, and that courts there had already rejected a competition-related challenge to the business practices of the league and its member clubs. Lin found that most of the conduct at issue in the lawsuit took place in Canada.8 Still, Lin in her ruling said the allegations "give the court pause" and that "the United States has an interest in the treatment of major junior hockey players recruited from and playing in the United States." The case is World Association of Ice Hockey Players Unions USA et al v. National Hockey League et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. 2:24-CV-2135-TL. For plaintiffs: Jeffrey Shinder of Shinder Cantor Lerner; Judith Zahid of Zelle; Michael Rubin of Altshuler Berzon; Gregory Asciolla of DiCello Levitt; Steve Shadowen of Hilliard Shadowen; and Paul Slater of Sperling Kenny Nachwalter For NHL: Andrew Gordon and Martha Goodman of Paul Weiss; William Isaacson For CHL: Derek Ludwin and Benjamin Block of Covington, and Vanessa Soriano Power of Stoel Rives [GN] NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Beatty Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ LEANDER BEATTY JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEIGHBORS CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00707 (E.D. Mo., May 15, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the complaint, the Defendant's investigation confirmed an unauthorized individual accessed data within its IT Network between September 20, 2024, and September 21, 2024. However, the Defendant did not notify impacted individuals until nearly eight months after the data breach occurred. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, Neighbors Credit Union is a financial cooperative that offers a range of financial products and services to its members. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com NEW JERSEY PERFORMING: Knowles Slams Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW JERSEY PERFORMING ARTS CENTER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04115 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.njpac.org/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 11, 2025, in an attempt to purchase an Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater Ticket from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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. He 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. New Jersey Performing Arts Center Corporation operates the NJPAC online interactive website and physical theatre location and entertainment venue across the United States.[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 NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Rubbermaid Food Containers --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a new nationwide class action lawsuit alleges that Rubbermaid, a Newell Brands company, falsely advertises its TakeAlongs food storage containers as microwave-safe and freezer-safe. The allegations are similar to those levied in a class action lawsuit against S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. over the safety of plastic Ziploc containers and bags. Plaintiffs Marija Andesilic and Passion Lowe filed the Rubbermaid class action lawsuit against Newell Brands on April 28 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Rubbermaid markets its TakeAlongs food storage containers as "microwave safe," "microwave reheatable" and "freezer safe." However, the plaintiffs allege these claims are false and misleading because the containers are made of polypropylene plastic, which allegedly releases harmful microplastics when microwaved or frozen. As a result, consumers are unknowingly ingesting dangerous microplastics, exposing themselves and their families to significant health risks, the Rubbermaid class action lawsuit states. Rubbermaid misleads consumers, class action alleges The plaintiffs allege Rubbermaid's safety claims are misleading and deceptive. They argue that consumers are led to believe they can safely use the containers in microwaves and freezers when, in reality, they cannot. The lawsuit claims that Rubbermaid's false advertising has caused consumers to overpay for products that do not deliver the promised safety attributes. The plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone in the United States who purchased the products during the relevant class period. They are suing for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the Rubbermaid class action lawsuit, damages and a court order stopping Rubbermaid from continuing to sell the products with the misleading safety claims. In December 2024, Newell Brands sought to dismiss a lawsuit claiming that it misleads consumers into thinking its Nuk baby bottles are safe and free of bisphenol A (BPA) yet fails to disclose the products leach microplastics when they are heated. Tommee Tippee, Philips and Dr. Brown baby bottles are facing similar allegations. What do you think of the allegations in this Rubbermaid class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Bahar Sodaify and Alan Gudino of Clarkson Law Firm P.C. The Rubbermaid class action lawsuit is Andesilic, et al. v. Newell Brands Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-03736, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] NEXTDOOR HOLDINGS: KVSB Securities Suit in Discovery Stage ---------------------------------------------------------- Nextdoor Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the securities class action complaint brought on behalf of a class of Khosla Ventures Acquisition Co. II ("KVSB") is in the discovery stage. On October 28, 2024 and October 29, 2024, two class action complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, certain of the Company's former officers, certain of the former officers and directors of the special purpose acquisition company KVSB into which the Company merged on November 5, 2021, the sponsor of the Company's special purpose acquisition merger Khosla Ventures SPAC Sponsor II LLC (the "Sponsor"), and certain entities allegedly related to the Sponsor. The two complaints were consolidated on December 6, 2024 and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on December 26, 2024. The consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a class of KVSB stockholders who could have, but did not, choose to redeem their KVSB shares in connection with the November 5, 2021 merger between KVSB and the Company. The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants breached various duties to KVSB stockholders by making false or misleading statements and/or aided and abetted such breaches. The consolidated complaint also alleges claims for unjust enrichment. The consolidated complaint seeks damages, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and other costs. Defendants answered the consolidated complaint on February 10, 2025, following which discovery commenced. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims in these actions. Given the procedural posture and the nature of such litigation matters, the Company is currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. Any litigation is inherently uncertain, and any judgment or injunctive relief entered against the Company or any adverse settlement could materially and adversely impact its business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects. ONE NEVADA: Immigration Class Suit Settlement Gets Court Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- maldef.org reports that a federal judge has granted final approval of a class-action settlement between One Nevada Credit Union and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and other immigrants who were denied full consideration for credit because of their immigration status. MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) represents DACA recipients and other immigrants who comprise the settlement class. "While MALDEF is gratified that class members will receive some recompense for experiencing the sting of unlawful discrimination, we are even more pleased that the defendant has changed its practices," said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel. "Credit unions developed to expand access to financial services, so irrational discrimination should never be a part of credit-union practices." As part of the agreement, preliminarily approved on February 11, One Nevada has agreed to create a settlement fund of $76,000 to compensate the class of immigrants affected by the challenged policy. One Nevada will also change its policies to permit those with valid "For Work Only" social security numbers to apply for membership and financial products as well as bring the credit union into compliance with all record-keeping requirements under state law. The settlement is one of more than a dozen MALDEF has reached with financial institutions that deny services to DACA recipients and other immigrants because of their immigration status rather than their credit-worthiness. The settlement provides for $2,000 payments each to 38 class members. All of the class members are residents of Nevada. The credit union must also pay attorneys' fees and other costs. "One Nevada is among the largest credit unions in Nevada," said Eduardo Casas, MALDEF attorney. "We are pleased that this settlement will open its doors to DACA recipients and other immigrants so that they can be assessed for credit worthiness like anyone else." MALDEF and co-counsel, Kathia Quiros from GWP Immigration Law, filed the suit in September 2022 on behalf of Jorge Hernandez Castro, a DACA recipient. Hernandez, 32, of Las Vegas, applied to One Nevada for an auto loan in July 2022. According to the lawsuit, One Nevada denied the loan to Hernandez because the social security card he obtained through DACA was for "work only" and because he was not a lawful permanent resident. Attorneys argued that One Nevada's denial of a loan to Hernandez violated Section 1981 of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. "This settlement marks a meaningful step forward for our community, bringing much-needed accountability and renewed hope for lasting change," said Hernandez. "I'm deeply grateful to MALDEF for their unwavering support, their service, and steadfast commitment to defending our rights. And let this stand as a powerful reminder: we must not remain silent in the face of injustice, but instead stand together, raise our voices, and continue the fight for a more just and equitable future for all." One Nevada is a member-owned credit union based in Las Vegas. It provides banking services, auto loans, mortgages, home equity loans, personal loans, and investment services. Since 2017, MALDEF has filed 22 lawsuits challenging the policies of financial institutions that discriminate against immigrants. [GN] OPENAI INC: Silverman Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Silverman et al v. OpenAI, Inc. et al (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-03483 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered an case management conference order that: The Class Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposal for the appointment of a single interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) by May 28, 2025. The Class Plaintiffs shall file a single Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before June 13, 2025, which is to include only the same products and causes of action that have already been asserted in the pending putative class actions. The Times is directed to submit a stipulation that its motion for leave to amend the complaint is unopposed on or before May 27, 2025. The Defendants are directed to file their oppositions to Raw Story Media's motion for reconsideration on or before Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Raw Story Media shall file its reply on or before June 2, 2025. The parties shall submit a joint proposed case schedule on or before June 17, 2025. The deadline for motions for summary judgment must precede class certification briefing in the proposal. If the parties cannot agree upon a proposed case schedule, they shall submit their competing proposals on or before June 17, 2025. OpenAI is a private research laboratory that aims to develop and direct artificial intelligence (AI) in ways that benefit humanity as a whole. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yAcZOj at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Tremblay Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tremblay, et al., v. OpenAI, Inc. et al. ((RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-03482 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered a case management conference order that: The Class Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposal for the appointment of a single interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) by May 28, 2025. The Class Plaintiffs shall file a single Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before June 13, 2025, which is to include only the same products and causes of action that have already been asserted in the pending putative class actions. The Times is directed to submit a stipulation that its motion for leave to amend the complaint is unopposed on or before May 27, 2025. The Defendants are directed to file their oppositions to Raw Story Media's motion for reconsideration on or before Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Raw Story Media shall file its reply on or before June 2, 2025. The parties shall submit a joint proposed case schedule on or before June 17, 2025. The deadline for motions for summary judgment must precede class certification briefing in the proposal. If the parties cannot agree upon a proposed case schedule, they shall submit their competing proposals on or before June 17, 2025. OpenAI is a private research laboratory that aims to develop and direct artificial intelligence (AI) in ways that benefit humanity as a whole. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h4hrFA at no extra charge.[CC] OTTER TAIL: Continues to Defend PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Otter Tail Corporation continues to defend itself against the PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation pending with the Northern District of Illinois, 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. Several class action complaints against certain PVC pipe manufacturers, including OTC, have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of antitrust laws. The first of these complaints was filed in August 2024 and the latest complaint was filed in April 2025. The various complaints have been consolidated under the caption In re: PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation (Case No. 1:24-cv-07639). Specifically, the complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in at least January 2021, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of PVC municipal water and electrical conduit pipe in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. In addition, on August 27, 2024, the Company received a grand jury subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division. The subpoena calls for production of documents regarding the manufacturing, selling and pricing of PVC pipe. The Company is responding to the subpoena and intends to comply with its obligations under the subpoena. At this time, we are unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, arising from the class action complaints or the DOJ investigation. However, if an antitrust violation by the Company is found, it could have a material impact on the Company's financial condition, operating results and liquidity. The Company believes that there are factual and legal defenses to the allegations in the complaints and intends to defend itself accordingly. PAPA TEXAS: Salazar Sues Over Flawed Expense Reimbursement Method ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. PAPA TEXAS, LLC, d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-00231 (S.D. Tex., May 16, 2025) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to herself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by the Defendant. According to the complaint, the Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately January 2022 to November 2022 as a delivery driver at Defendant's Papa John's store located in Edinburg, Texas. Papa Texas, LLC, d/b/a Papa John's, operates numerous Papa John's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 North Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com PETER ANDREWS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Peter Andrews Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02741 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2025) is a civil rights action against Peter Andrews for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.peterandrews.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. 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: hidden elements on the web page, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Peter Andrews' 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. Peter Andrews Corporation operates the website which offers home furnishing products including outdoor and indoor furniture, sofas, bar stools, chairs, dining sets and tables, sectionals, beds, and other home décor accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com POTBELLY CORP: Settlement in Washington Suit Pending for Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Potbelly Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period Ended March 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement in the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act class action lawsuit is pending court approval. In June 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in Washington state against us relating to the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act. As of December 29, 2024, we deemed it probable that a material loss exposure exists in relation to this matter. "As such, we recorded a loss contingency of $1.8 million in 2024 based on our then current estimate of the potential outcome, which was reflected in general and administrative expenses in the prior year consolidated statements of operations. On January 22, 2025, we entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Plaintiff relating to the settlement of the claims. On March 27, 2025, we executed a Class Action Settlement Agreement reflective of the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Plaintiff, subject to court approval, confirming the original estimate of $1.8 million," the Company stated. PRESTAMOS CDFI: Court Rejects Marshall Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John M. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a memorandum opinion in the case captioned Alicia Marshall, et al. v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC and Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., Civil No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG (E.D. Pa.). The court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the defendants' Daubert motion to exclude expert reports and denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In early 2020, during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to help small businesses brave the financial storm wrecking the world. Plaintiffs applied and were approved for PPP loans with Prestamos CDFI, LLC. But their banks returned the loan funds to Prestamos for different reasons specific to each person. So Plaintiffs never got their money. They brought this class action lawsuit against Prestamos arguing that Prestamos breached the standard contracts that it signed with each Plaintiff promising to fund their loans. Plaintiffs claim that this breach injured them in several ways: that Prestamos falsely reported their loans as funded, left them responsible for repaying the loans, and prevented them from getting a loan from someone else. Prestamos worked as one of the private lenders in charge of processing PPP loans. Because Prestamos is a non-depository bank that lacks the liquidity of other SBA-approved lenders, it relied on credit advances from the Federal Reserve to issue PPP loans. Prestamos started small. In 2020, it processed only 935 loans, making $1.3 million in fees. But after the government increased the loan fees in December 2020, the number of loans processed by Prestamos, exploded. In 2021, Prestamos contracted with another company -- Blueacorn -- to fund a staggering 494,415 loans worth about $7.68 million. While processing extra PPP loans brought in more money for Prestamos, it also led to problems with borrowers. Plaintiffs allege that they applied for loans with Prestamos and signed the same contract. Prestamos ultimately failed to fund their loans. But Prestamos still reported the loans as funded to receive fees from the SBA. Plaintiffs call this false reporting and contend it violated the standard contracts, which stated that Prestamos would only receive fees for loans that they "ultimately funded." And Plaintiffs also claim that Prestamos' failure to fund and misrepresentation to the government left them on the hook for repaying the loans even though they never received the funds, stopped them from obtaining loan forgiveness, and prevented them from getting loans from another lender. Plaintiffs sued Prestamos for breach of contract on October 1, 2021. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 6, 2024. They believe that class certification is appropriate because liability for each Plaintiff rises and falls with the same contract and PPP regulations. They seek certification of two classes: a Damages Class and a Declaratory Judgment Class, covering persons and entities in multiple states who applied for PPP loans with Prestamos in 2021, received an SBA loan number, submitted all required documentation, but did not receive loan proceeds despite Prestamos reporting the loans as funded. Plaintiffs argue that their claims are well-suited for class treatment because they arise from a standard contract with uniform terms, and the alleged breach -- failure to fund the loans while reporting them as funded -- affects all class members similarly. They assert that the commonality of their claims is evident, as the central question is whether Prestamos was obligated to fund their loans or cancel them, a question they believe can be resolved classwide. In response, Prestamos does not dispute that it failed to fund Plaintiffs' loans. Instead, it claims that the government issued guidance directing lenders to investigate the possibility of fraud in suspicious PPP loan applications. Prestamos followed the government's directives. Once a borrower's bank returned a loan to Prestamos and flagged it for potential fraud using certain Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) rejection codes created for suspicious PPP activity, Prestamos asked Blueacorn to do due diligence on the loan. For different reasons, Prestamos alleges, each Plaintiff failed this process. Prestamos opposes class certification, arguing that the individualized reasons for loan rejections defeat the requirements for class certification. Prestamos moved to exclude the expert reports of William Briggs, William Manger, and Steven Feinstein. According to Prestamos, none of the expert reports satisfy Daubert because they improperly offer legal conclusions. The court addressed the Daubert motion first, as plaintiffs relied on expert reports for class certification. According to the court, the case against Prestamos is virtually identical to Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC, 2023 WL 5746927 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2023). In both cases, borrowers brought a class action suit against a private lender alleging that the lender failed to fund their approved PPP loans. "In both cases, plaintiffs alleged similar harms -- responsibility to repay unfunded loans and inability to get loans from other lenders. In both cases, plaintiffs had the same counsel and experts. In both cases, there were two motions -- one to exclude the expert reports and another to certify the proposed classes. And, in both cases, the result will be the same: the expert reports will only be considered for their background opinions on the PPP and the proposed classes will not be certified because of the factual differences between plaintiffs' loan processes," the court said. The court held that Briggs, Manger, and Feinstein are qualified and their backgrounds opinions are reliable and fit with the main issue in the case. However, their legal opinions to distinguish this case from Greathouse and their interpretation of PPP regulations are excluded. The class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only. For this exception to apply, Plaintiffs "must satisfy the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and the requirements of either Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3)." The Court agreed with Prestamos that Plaintiffs cannot meet commonality. Plaintiffs failed Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements. Commonality was unmet, as varied ACH rejection codes meant the question of whether loans should have been canceled lacked a classwide answer. Typicality failed due to unique defenses from individualized loan return reasons. Predominance was not satisfied, as proving breach of contract required individual inquiries into loan rejections. Superiority was defeated by these same individualized issues, making class action unsuitable. Thus, class certification was denied. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V2iDRN from PacerMonitor.com. PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC KNIGHT and JUNG KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE, and PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Ohio corporations, Case No. 3:22-cv-00203-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. Under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court preliminarily approves the following Settlement Classes: Progressive Northwestern Class: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of personal automobile insurance issued by Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company to an Arkansas resident where the claim was submitted from Aug. 4, 2017, through the date an order granting Preliminary Approval is entered, and Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least one comparable vehicle." Progressive Direct Class: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of personal automobile insurance issued by Progressive Direct Insurance Company to an Arkansas resident where the claim was submitted from Oct. 4, 2019, through the date an order granting Preliminary Approval is entered, and Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least one comparable vehicle." Other Underwriters Class: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of personal automobile insurance issued by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, or Progressive Classic Insurance Company to an Arkansas resident, and Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, or Progressive Classic Insurance Company to an Arkansas resident where the claim was submitted within five years prior to the date an order granting Preliminary Approval is entered, and Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least one comparable vehicle." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Classes are (1) any judge presiding over this Action and members of their families; and (2) Defendants, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which any Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees. 3. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and for the same reasons previously articulated in this Court's Class Certification Order, and for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, Plaintiffs Eric Knight and Jung Kim are appointed Settlement Class Representatives for the Settlement Classes and the following counsel are appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Classes: Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Jacobson Phillips PLLC, Normand PLLC, Edelsberg Law, P.A., and Shamis & Gentile. 4. The Final Fairness Hearing is scheduled to be held on Sept. 25, 2025 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the United Stated District Court, 500 West Capitol Avenue, Room C446, Little Rock, Arkansas. Progressive provides different types of insurance policies. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UHfHNu at no extra charge.[CC] QUEBEC: To Pay Damages for Violations of Criminal Code, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Linda Gyulai, writing The Gazette, reports that a person's right to appear before a judge within 24 hours of being arrested and detained is a cornerstone of Canada's criminal justice procedure, and now a judge has ordered the province of Quebec to pay damages of $164 million plus interest for willfully violating that right thousands of times. "The (prosecutor's office) and the (Quebec Justice Department) failed in their obligation to put in place a system that guarantees an appearance that complies with the requirements of the Criminal Code, knowing full well that their faulty appearance system led to the systemic violation of the fundamental rights of those seeking justice by failing to comply with the 24-hour deadline on Sundays and public holidays from 2015 to 2019-2020," Quebec Superior Court Justice Donald Bisson writes in a 155-page ruling dated May 20 in a class-action lawsuit against the province. "It was expected that thousands of people seeking justice would be affected, and that is exactly what happened." The suit was filed by the Montreal law firm Kugler Kandestin on behalf of people whose right to a court appearance within 24 hours was violated between 2015 and 2020. It's estimated there were about 24,000 such incidents during the period covered by the class action. "It's a significant judgment and we're extremely proud of it," lawyer Robert Kugler said on Monday, May 26. With the interest accumulated, he estimates the province will pay about $240 million. "It can never be forgotten that any time an individual is arrested, even if the peace officer thinks that person needs to be detained, those people are presumed innocent. They can't be punished until such time as they are found guilty. That's why there are such strict rules in place in the Criminal Code, to ensure that their rights are respected." The judge ruled in favour of the class-action lawsuit in its entirety, stating that the Quebec government not only intentionally violated the fundamental rights of thousands of people to have a court appearance within 24 hours of being detained, but also that it did so for budgetary reasons to save the cost of staffing courts on Sundays and statutory holidays. "The evidence shows that administrative and budgetary considerations led to the withdrawal of Sunday appearances, even though such considerations can never justify the violation of constitutional rights," Bisson writes. Before June 2015, "telephone appearances" before a justice of the peace were permitted in parts of Quebec, but these were subsequently ruled to not respect the Criminal Code. The class-action start date of June 2015 represents the date when the Quebec prosecutor's office removed all appearances, including telephone appearances, on Sundays and statutory holidays, Kugler said. The Quebec prosecutor's office had argued in its defence that it was the justices of the Court of Quebec who didn't want to sit on Sundays and statutory holidays, and therefore it wasn't responsible for the rights violations. However, Bisson rejected the argument, stating in his ruling that "the responsibility for implementing a system that ensures compliance with (the 24-hour rule) belongs to the state and, consequently, to all state actors." The province only changed its system and began staffing the Court of Quebec on Sundays and statutory holidays after the class-action lawsuit was authorized to proceed in 2020 -- a fact Bisson notes in his ruling. The province sought unsuccessfully to have the class-action lawsuit denied by a judge. "It suggests this situation never would have been rectified without a class action," Kugler said. The class action initially included the City of Montreal and Quebec City because the two cities also did not staff their municipal courts, which treat minor offences of municipal bylaws, on Sundays and statutory holidays at the time. After the class-action lawsuit was authorized against the province and the two cities, Montreal and Quebec City settled out of court, with Montreal paying $4.3 million and Quebec City paying $412,000 in their settlements, Kugler said. The Quebec government, however, chose to go to trial, which was held over a month earlier this year. Bisson's judgment grants the plaintiffs' damage claim of $7,000 per incident of detention beyond the 24-hour delay between 2015 and 2020, plus interest. However, given the number of incidents, the judge has ordered the government to pay a lump sum of $164 million plus interest within 30 days and to cover the cost of a claims administrator to identify and track down thousands of people who qualify for damages through court and police records. The province has 30 days to decide if it will file an appeal. "Out of respect for the judicial process, we will not be making any comment," the Justice Department said in an email. The Quebec prosecutor's office also said it can't comment, saying in an email: "We acknowledge the court's decision and are taking the time to analyze the merits of its conclusions." Numerous court rulings over the years have affirmed the fundamental right of a person to have an appearance before a judge within 24 hours of being arrested and detained, Kugler said, and other provinces allow such appearances on Sundays and statutory holidays. When a police officer makes an arrest, the person may be released from custody after signing a promise to appear in court at a later date to face charges. However, the police may decide the person should not be released and will detain the person in a holding cell at a police station until they can appear before a judge. Before 2020 in Quebec, that meant a person arrested on a Saturday evening would not appear in court until Monday and would sit in a police holding cell until then. "A holding cell is nothing like a cell in a detention facility," Kugler said. "In a holding cell in a police station, the lights are on all the time. There's zero privacy. There's no ability to take a shower. You don't get really any meals, there's nothing to do. There's no television, there's no one to speak to, there's nothing to read." The person may need medication or treatment and doesn't have access to that in a police cell, he added. Kugler said he hopes the ruling will serve as a precedent in another class-action lawsuit filed by his firm on behalf of at least 1,500 Nunavik residents. This second class action claims that the right of people arrested in the North to a timely bail hearing -- the next step in the criminal justice process after an appearance before a judge -- was systemically violated for years. [GN] RED CAT: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Sue July 22 ----------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Red Cat Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCAT) securities between March 18, 2022 and January 15, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until July 22, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit. Captioned Olsen v. Red Cat Holdings, Inc., No. 25-cv-05427 (D.N.J.), the Red Cat class action lawsuit charges Red Cat and certain of Red Cat's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-red-cat-holdings-inc-class-action-lawsuit-rcat.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Red Cat, together with its subsidiaries, provides products and solutions to drone industry. Red Cat's products include, among others, the "Teal 2" drone, a small, unmanned aircraft system designed to purportedly "Dominate the Night" during nighttime military operations. The Red Cat class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Red Cat's Salt Lake City facility's production capacity, and defendants' progress in developing the same, was overstated; and (ii) the overall value of Red Cat's Short Range Reconnaissance Program of Record Tranche 2 contract (the "SRR Contract") was overstated. The Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that on July 27, 2023, Red Cat revealed that its Salt Lake City facility could only currently produce 100 drones per month, the facility was still being built, refined, and expanded, and that construction of the facility was only "substantially completed" and potentially could reach a production capacity of 1,000 drones per month over the next 2 to 3 years, but only with additional capital investments and manufacturing efficiencies realized. On this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell nearly 9%, according to the complaint. Then, on September 23, 2024, the Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that Red Cat announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025, reporting losses per share of $0.17, missing consensus estimates by $0.09, and revenue of $2.8 million, missing consensus estimates by $1.07 million. According to the complaint, Red Cat further disclosed that Red Cat had spent "the past four months . . . retooling [the Salt Lake City facility] and preparing for high volume production," while admitting that a "pause in manufacturing of Teal 2 and building Army prototypes impacted Teal 2 sales" because, among other things, Red Cat "couldn't produce and sell Teal 2 units while retooling [its] factory." The Red Cat class action lawsuit alleges that on this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell more than 25%. Finally, the Red Cat class action lawsuit further alleges that on January 16, 2025, Kerrisdale Capital published a report alleging that "[t]he SRR contract that Red Cat won in November and preemptively announced without the Army's permission is much smaller and less favorable than management as intimated," and that "[i]t's highly implausible that a mass-production facility for manufacturing drones has been built at any point in the last two years for less than $1 million." On this news, the price of Red Cat stock fell more than 21% over two trading sessions, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Red Cat securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Red Cat class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Red Cat class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Red Cat class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Red Cat class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases - more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contacts Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bid for Leave to File Reply Under Seal OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pietoso, Inc. v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00397 (E.D. Mo., Filed March 1, 2019), the Hon. Judge John A. Ross entered an order granting motion for leave to file under seal regarding reply in support of motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Breach of Contract. Republic Services is a North American waste disposal company whose services include non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste transfer, waste disposal, recycling, and energy services.[CC] REPUBLIC SERVICES: Charges Customers Unlawful Fees, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHIGAN VISION INSTITUTE, PLLC; ANDREW B. WADE, D.D.S., M.S., LLC d/b/a WADE ORTHODONTICS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; TRI COUNTY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. d/b/a AW OF FLINT, REPUBLIC SERVICES OF FLINT, SYNERGY ENVIRONMENTAL; ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.; BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF OHIO, INC. d/b/a REPULIC SERVICES OF CENTRAL OHIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-11454-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich., May 16, 2025) alleges the Defendants' engagement 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 entered into standard, preprinted contracts with Republic like thousands of other small businesses across the U.S. 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 fee it calls "Fuel/Environmental Recovery Fees" but which, in fact, has 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, says the suit. 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: Angela L. Jackson, Esq. HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C. 126 South Main Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 662-4426 E-mail: ajackson@hooperhathaway.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 REPUBLIC SERVICES: Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Report by June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Woody's Pizzeria; and Coastal Community Foundation of South Carolina, Inc., v. Republic Services, Inc., Republic Services of South Carolina, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-01242-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered an order on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: The Defendants shall submit to the Court class member contracts they argue contain materially different "Rate Adjustment" provisions and state with specificity any alleged material differences in the contracts by May 16, 2025. The Plaintiffs may respond to the Defendants submission regarding any alleged materially different "Rate Adjustment" provisions by May 19, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall submit a renewed damages expert report as discussed at oral argument on May 15, 2025, by June 13, 2025. The Defendants may submit a renewed rebuttal expert report by July 15, 2025. The depositions shall be limited to the contents of the revised reports by Aug. 12, 2025. The Plaintiffs may file a supplemental memorandum to their Motion for Class Certification that addresses the revised expert damages reports by Aug. 27, 2025. -- The Defendants may file a response by Sept. 11, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs may file a reply by Sept. 18, 2025. The Defendants may file a supplemental memorandum to their Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Patrick Kilbourne by Aug. 27, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs may file a response by Sept. 11, 2025. -- The Defendants may file a reply by Sept. 18, 2025. The parties are directed to return to mediation on or before Sept. 30, 2025. Republic is a North American waste disposal company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4XiEDd at no extra charge.[CC] ROCKETREACH LLC: McClure Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kelli McClure, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROCKETREACH LLC, Case No. 25-2-1121-7 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00986. The Plaintiff asserts one cause of action for violation of Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act. Plaintiff's alleged harm is based on allegations that RocketReach listed her cellular telephone number on its website without her consent.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, WSBA no. 59991 EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, New York Phone: 646.837.7127 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Patrick Lynch, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 520 Pike Street, Suite 2350 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone (Direct): (206) 709-6665 Phone (Main): (206) 709-5900 Fax: (206) 709-5901 Email: Patrick.lynch@wilsonelser.com SALTIE GIRL: Clayton and Soltani Sue Over Labor Code Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------- BETHANY CLAYTON and YASMIN SOLTANI, as "aggrieved employees" on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiffs v. SALTIE GIRL LA LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV14374 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2025) seeks for civil penalties and other related relief pursuant to the the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 5-2001. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as servers and were classified as as a non-exempt employees who are entitled to the protections of the Labor Code and the Wage Order. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the other aggrieved employees for all time worked. In addition, any bonus and/or incentive payments were not factored into Plaintiffs' correct meal and rest break premium pay, says the suit. Based in California, Saltie Girl LA LLC owns and operates a restaurant in West Hollywood, CA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maralle Messrelian, Esq. MM LAW, APC 500 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 2000 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 810-7747 Facsimile: (818) 230-9018 E-mail: maralle@mmlawapc.com SAN DIEGO HAT: Faces Battle Suit Over Website Inaccessibility ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. San Diego Hat Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05420 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2025) arises from 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. Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily trafficked retail websites, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. As a result, only sighted customers can independently browse, select and buy online without the assistance of others. The Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Carlsbad, CA, San Diego Hat Company owns and operates the website, https://www.sandiegohat.com, which offers several hat styles, including fedoras, floppy hats, cozy knits, and caps, as well as accessories such as scarves and bags. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com SANGAMON COUNTY, IL: Woods Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dayne Woods v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Office et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03287-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. Sangamon serves the public offering a patrol division, investigations, civil process, court Security, and jail. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=85Yq8i at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] SCHNADER HARRISON: Bennett Class Cert. Filing Extended to June 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JO BENNETT, v. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00592-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order extending the deadline to file any motion for class certification and any motion seeking preliminary approval of the parties' settlement to June 23, 2025. Schnader is a law firm that was founded in Philadelphia in 1935. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3D9pCi at no extra charge.[CC] SCI ROCKVIEW: Pugh Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Michael Pugh, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated inmates of SCI Rockview, v. Dr. Laurel Harrys, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00893-YK-SH (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FtuNJC at no extra charge.[CC] SEA WORLD: Agrees to Settle Auto-Renewal Class Suit for $1.5MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that SeaWorld agreed to a $1.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to provide proper notice and terms for its annual pass auto-renewal. The SeaWorld class action settlement benefits California consumers who purchased one or more SeaWorld San Diego annual passes through the SeaWorld San Diego website or app on or after Feb. 28, 2019, and whose annual pass automatically renewed after the initial 12-month commitment ended on or before Feb. 28, 2025, and who did not receive a refund for the first auto-renewal charge. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim SeaWorld failed to provide the proper notice and terms required by California law when charging customers for annual pass auto-renewals. They allege they were misled by SeaWorld's failure to comply with California's automatic renewal law. SeaWorld is an amusement park chain with aquatic-themed parks around the country, including SeaWorld San Diego. SeaWorld has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.5 million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the SeaWorld class action settlement, class members can receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund based on the number of claims filed. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members. Class members who received a notice in the mail will be able to select how they want to receive their payment, either as an electronic payment or a paper check. The deadline for exclusion is July 22, 2025, and the deadline for objection is July 31, 2025. The final approval hearing for the SeaWorld class action settlement is scheduled for Aug. 15, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible Consumers with a California home or billing address on file with SeaWorld who purchased one or more annual passes to SeaWorld San Diego using the SeaWorld San Diego website or mobile application on or after Feb. 28, 2019, whose annual pass automatically renewed after the initial 12-month commitment ended on or before Feb. 28, 2025, and who did not receive a refund for the first auto-renewal charge. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 07/22/2025 Case Name Lomeli, et al. v. Sea World Parks and Entertainment Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2023-00008529-CU-BT-CTL, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego Final Hearing 08/15/2025 Settlement Website SeaWorldAnnualPassSettlement.com Claims Administrator Sea World San Diego Annual Pass Settlement Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2377 Portland, OR 97208-2377 info@SeaWorldAnnualPassSettlement.com (888) 865-1770 Class Counsel Grace Parasmo PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW Zack Broslavsky BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN LLP Ethan Preston PRESTON LAW OFFICES Defense Counsel Lawrence Y. Iser KINSELLA HOLLY ISER KUMP STEINSAPIR LLP [GN] SERVICEAIDE INC: Balzer Sues Over Failure to Protect Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Balzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERVICEAIDE, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-04440 (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failures to adequately protect the confidential medical information, Personally Identifying Information ("Private Information") and Protected Health Information ("PHI" (collectively, "Private Information") of Catholic Health's patients, resulting in a data security breach between September 19, 2024 and November 5, 2024. The Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Private Information was exposed including their names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical record numbers, patient account numbers, medical/health information, health insurance information, prescription/treatment information, clinical information, provider name, provider location, and email/username and password. As a natural and probable result of Defendant's tortious misconduct, Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered widespread injuries and damages, including but not limited to: invasion of their privacy rights; the unauthorized disclosure of Private Information itself, including on information and belief, publication to the Dark Web; and, she has been forced to expend time and effort to protect herself from identity theft resulting from the Data Breach, including, monitoring her credit reports and account statements, and will be required to do so into the future to mitigate the consequences of the Data Breach. Because of Defendant's failures, approximately 483,126 individuals suffered a severe invasion of their privacy when Defendant allowed their Private Information to fall into the hands of precisely the individuals their information should be protected from—cybercriminals and identity thieves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. ServiceAide, is a California based company, which purports to provide "information technology support management services to Catholic Health," including through its Catholic Health Elasticsearch database.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com SHADE STORE: Continuation of Class Cert Hearing to August 6 Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON CROWDER, JOEL LUMIAN, ROBERT SMITH, AMANDA GOLDWASSER, and MARK ELKINS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02331-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting extension of time to file as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification and opposition to motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts shall be filed by June 17, 2025. 2. The Defendant's reply in support of its motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts shall be filed by July 21, 2025. 3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be continued to Aug. 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The extension will not otherwise alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order. The Shade Store sells custom window treatments such as shades, drapes, and blinds. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OpyMQg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SHADE STORE: Fitzgerald Class Cert Reply Extended to June 24 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD and KATHERINE ADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order granting stipulated motion for extension of time to file briefing on class certification and motions to exclude: Case Event Amended Deadline Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion June 24, 2025 for Class Certification and Opposition to Motions to Exclude: Defendant's Reply in Support of Motions July 29, 2025 to Exclude: The Shade Store sells custom window treatments such as shades, drapes, and blinds. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b8JXFM at no extra charge.[CC] SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE: Seeks to Dismiss TILA Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- National Mortgage Professional reports that Shellpoint and BNY Mellon seek to dismiss a class action over revived second mortgages, arguing no duty to send statements on debts discharged in bankruptcy amid growing scrutiny of "zombie lien" practices In a high-profile case closely watched by mortgage servicers and consumer advocates alike, NewRez LLC (DBA Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing) and The Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) have asked the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging they inflated balances on second mortgages that had been long dormant following bankruptcy discharges. The case, Hodges v. NewRez LLC et al., centers on Eva Hodges, a Massachusetts homeowner who filed for bankruptcy in 2008 and stopped receiving monthly statements on her home equity line of credit (HELOC). More than 15 years later, she was notified that she owed over $150,000 -- largely accrued interest and fees -- on a mortgage she believed was no longer enforceable. In an amended complaint filed in April, Hodges accused Shellpoint and BNYM of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Massachusetts state consumer protection laws, and federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosure rules by failing to provide periodic billing statements for years, then seeking to collect interest and fees retroactively. The suit seeks class certification on behalf of borrowers in similar situations whose HELOCs were discharged in bankruptcy but remained subject to lien enforcement and interest accruals without regular statements. The defendants' May 20 motion to dismiss argues that all of Hodges' claims collapse without a valid TILA violation. Shellpoint and BNYM assert that as a mortgage servicer and loan assignee, respectively, they are not liable under TILA. Further, because TILA only applies to creditors or qualifying assignees -- and the plaintiff had already voluntarily dropped her original TILA claim -- they contend the FDCPA and state law claims can't be used to repackage a non-existent TILA violation. "Plaintiff attempts to shoehorn the non-existent TILA violation into claims by other names," the motion states, labeling the amended complaint as an effort to "backdoor" an unenforceable claim through other legal theories. Among the five counts in the amended complaint are class-wide and individual claims under the FDCPA, claims under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A and the state's debt collection regulations, and a request for declaratory judgment that Shellpoint and BNYM are not entitled to the disputed fees and interest. The defense argues that: -- No federal or state law independently mandates sending monthly mortgage statements after a debt is discharged in bankruptcy; -- The FDCPA cannot be used to enforce TILA obligations, a strategy courts have widely rejected; -- There is no "actual controversy" required for declaratory relief because no enforceable legal duty exists absent a TILA claim; -- The class claims should be dismissed because the named plaintiff lacks a viable personal claim. The case underscores the increasing scrutiny on "zombie second mortgages" -- long-dormant liens that resurface years after bankruptcy discharges, often surprising borrowers with large balances and foreclosure threats. Regulators including the CFPB have warned about these practices, citing borrower confusion and potential abuses by servicers and debt buyers. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. A decision could set precedent for how mortgage servicers handle discharged second liens -- and whether servicers must send statements even when borrowers no longer have personal liability. [GN] SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Valdez Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rogelio Garcia Valdez and Marbella Gomez on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Signature Landscape, LLC (Kansas Limited Liability Corporation), Case No. 2:22-cv-02276-TC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion as follows: a) Designate this action as a class action under FED.R.CIV.P. 23 on behalf of the class set forth above and issue of notice to said members apprising them of the pendency of this action; b) Designate Rogelio Garcia Valdez and Marbella Gomez as Representative Plaintiffs for this class; and c) Designate of Brendan J. Donelon of the law office of Donelon, P.C. and Ashley H. Atwell-Soler of the law office of Holman Schiavone, LLC as the attorneys representing this class. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and move Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 to certify a claim under Missouri's Minimum Wage Law (MMWL), for the following class of employees as alleged in their First Amended Complaint: "All Landscape Laborers (or persons with similar job duties) who worked, or will work during the liability period, in the state of Missouri, for the Defendant at any time from three years prior to the filing of this Complaint who were not paid one and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek." The initial Complaint for this class of employees was filed on July 18, 2022. Therefore, this proposed class would apply to said employees working for Defendants three years from this filing (or from July 18, 2019, to the present), asserts the suit. Signature is a premier hardscape and landscape contractor. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GNKHXf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 4600 Madison, Ste. 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 221-7100 Facsimile: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com - and - Ashley Atwell-Soler, Esq. HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC 4600 Madison Ave., Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 447-3006 E-mail: AAtwell@hslawllc.com SMARTRENT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Delaware Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Smartrent, 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 discovery is ongoing in the class action complaint pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In February 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against Fifth Wall Acquisition Sponsor, LLC, Fifth Wall Asset Management, LLC (the "FWAA Defendants"), and the individual directors of Fifth Wall Acquisition Corp. I ("FWAA") (the "Director Defendants" and collectively the "Defendants") in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a stockholder of FWAA for purported damages arising from the business combination with SmartRent.com, Inc. ("the 2024 Class Action"). The complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty against the Director Defendants; (ii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims against Fifth Wall Asset Management LLC; and (iii) unjust enrichment claims against all Defendants, for purported actions relating to FWAA's August 24, 2021 merger with legacy SmartRent.com, Inc. The parties are engaged in discovery and document production to date, and the Company and the defendants believe the allegations and claims made in the complaint are without merit. SNAP INC: Black Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIE BLACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SNAP INC., EVAN SPIEGEL, and JEREMI GORMAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-08892-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 25, 2025, will move the Court for entry of an Order: (1) certifying the Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representatives; and (3) appointing Saxena White P.A. as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of itself and all other persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Snap pubicly traded securities, including Snap put options, between April 23, 2021 and Oct. 21, 2021, inclusive, and were damaged thereby. The case is a securities class action against Snap, Inc. and two of its most senior executives, Jeremi Gorman and Evan Spiegel. Snap is a social media company whose primary product is the mobile application Snapchat. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oRMx81 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maya Saxena, Esq. Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Dianne M. Pitre, Esq. Scott M. Koren, Esq. Steven B. Singer, Esq. Kyla Grant, Esq. Sara DiLeo, Esq. David R. Kaplan, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com jwhite@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com dpitre@saxenawhite.com skoren@saxenawhite.com ssinger@saxenawhite.com kgrant@saxenawhite.com sdileo@saxenawhite.com dkaplan@saxenawhite.com - and - John L. Littrell, Esq. Michael R. Williams, Esq. BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP 360 E. 2nd Street, Suite 265 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (949) 369-3700 Facsimile: (949) 369-3701 E-mail: jlittrell@bklwlaw.com mwilliams@bklwlaw.com SOGOTRADE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McAfee Says --------------------------------------------------------- ADAM MCAFEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOGOTRADE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00720 (E.D. Mo., May 16, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on May 8, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the data breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons, whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. SogoTrade, Inc. is an online discount brokerage firm that offers a range of investment products and services, catering primarily to self-directed investors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com SOLARIS ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Mobile Energy Acquisition --------------------------------------------------------------- Solaris Energy Infrastructure, 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 is facing a putative class action lawsuit relating to the Company's acquisition of Mobile Energy Rentals LLC. On March 28, 2025, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in a putative class action lawsuit styled Stephen Pirello v. Solaris Energy Infrastructure, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-01455, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint asserts claims against the Company and certain of its officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging among other things that they made misleading statements and omissions relating to the Company's acquisition of Mobile Energy Rentals LLC. The complaint further alleges that these allegedly misleading statements and omissions were revealed in the Morpheus Research report regarding the Company issued on March 17, 2025, which the complaint alleges caused a decline in the Company's stock price. The outcome of the lawsuit is uncertain, particularly because it is at its initial stages. However, the Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. SOLID POWER: Continues to Defend "Hamilton" ------------------------------------------- Solid Power, Inc., continues to defend itself against a putative class action styled Hamilton et al. v. Anderson et al., C.A. No. 2024-1241-JTL, 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 December 3, 2024, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action against the former officers and directors of Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation III ("DCRC"), including Erik Anderson; Riverstone Holdings, LLC; and related sponsors and entities (the "Hamilton Defendants") in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Hamilton et al. v. Anderson et al., C.A. No. 2024-1241-JTL). The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment arising from the merger of Solid Power Operating, Inc. with a subsidiary of DCRC and seeks to recover unspecified damages and equitable relief. None of the Company, its subsidiaries, or its current officers or directors, except Mr. Anderson, is named as a defendant. The Hamilton Defendants have demanded indemnification and advancement of defense costs from the Company. "Accordingly, it is reasonably possible that the Company could be liable for the legal fees, defense costs, judgments, and/or settlement fees incurred by certain of the Hamilton Defendants. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, and the Company cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible loss," the Company said. SPLAY ATHLETICS: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SPLAY ATHLETICS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04157 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, splayshoes.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 11, 2025, in an attempt to purchase REV HT Barcelona shoe from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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. He 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. Splay Athletics LLC operates the website that offers footwear 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 STATE FARM: Court Narrows Claims, Grants Class Status in Gulick --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Judge Toby Crouse of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted, in part, and denied, in part, multiple motions in the class action lawsuit styled Gulick et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 21-cv-02573-TC (D. Kan.), allowing the case to proceed as a class action on the breach of contract claim. The court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs Paula Gulick and Sharon Schlehuber, representing themselves and all other members of the proposed Class, filed this class action against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory judgment. The claims arise from State Farm's alleged systematic underpayment of totaled vehicle claims by applying a "typical negotiation adjustment" through Audatex, which Plaintiffs contend reduced payouts below the actual cash value (ACV) required by their insurance policies. State Farm moved to exclude Plaintiffs' expert testimony, opposed class certification, and sought summary judgment, while Plaintiffs moved to exclude certain defense expert testimony. The court addressed each motion under the applicable legal standards, issuing nuanced rulings that balance the parties' competing interests while advancing the case toward resolution. Lead Plaintiffs alleged that State Farm's use of the Audatex negotiation adjustment artificially lowered the valuation of totalled vehicles as it is based on the assumption that a used vehicle's "selling price may be substantially less than the asking price." Audatex determined the amount of the typical negotiation adjustment by obtaining data from used automobile sellers regarding the sales prices of various vehicles and comparing that data to the vehicles' advertised prices breaching the insurance contracts' promise to pay ACV. Lead Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all Kansas policyholders whose totaled vehicle claims were subject to the adjustment during the relevant period. State Farm contested liability, arguing that the adjustment reflected standard market practices and that individual claim variations precluded class treatment. The court's rulings provide critical guidance on how the case will proceed. The court meticulously evaluated motions to exclude expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert opinions based on qualifications, reliability, and relevance. It allows an expert to be excluded if the expert "would act as mere conduit for hearsay." Plaintiffs' Experts: A. Jason Merritt State Farm moved to exclude the testimony of Jason Merritt, a vehicle appraisal expert with over 40 years of experience, arguing that he was unqualified and his opinions unreliable. The court denied State Farm's motion, finding that Merritt's extensive experience in vehicle appraisals qualified him to opine that Audatex's negotiation adjustment deviated from industry standards and that removing it would yield a sound ACV estimate. His methodology, based on reviewing Audatex reports and applying standard appraisal principles, was deemed reliable and relevant under Rule 702. The court emphasized that State Farm's objections went to the weight, not admissibility, of Merritt's testimony, which could be addressed through cross-examination. State Farm also moved to strike Merritt's second rebuttal report as untimely. The court denied the motion, finding the delay harmless given the ongoing merits discovery phase and the absence of bad faith. The court noted that State Farm had sufficient opportunity to respond, and inclusion of the report did not disrupt the case's procedural schedule. B. Kirk Felix State Farm challenged Kirk Felix, a consultant with decades of experience advising dealerships on pricing trends, asserting that his opinions lacked empirical data and personal sales experience. The court denied the motion, holding that Felix's expertise in pricing trends qualified him to testify that used cars are typically "priced to market" with minimal negotiation. His reliance on industry experience satisfied Rule 702's requirements, and the court rejected State Farm's arguments as challenges to credibility rather than admissibility. Defendant's Experts: A. Laurentius Marais Plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of Laurentius Marais, a statistical expert, arguing that his critiques of Felix's methodology were unscientific and relied on inadmissible internet articles. The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion. Marais's opinions criticizing Felix's methodology were excluded as outside his statistical expertise, and his reliance on internet articles was deemed unreliable. However, his critique of Plaintiffs' damages model, which ignored alternative valuation methods, was admitted as within his expertise and relevant to the case. His opinion on Plaintiffs' specific damages was excluded as an impermissible legal conclusion. B. Philip Fernbach Plaintiffs moved to exclude Philip Fernbach's survey evidence on the prevalence of negotiation in used car sales, arguing it constituted hearsay. The court denied the motion, finding that Rule 703 permits experts to rely on such data, and Plaintiffs failed to show that its probative value was substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect. The court noted that Fernbach's survey was conducted using accepted methodologies and was relevant to State Farm's defense. Class Status The court granted certification for the breach of contract claim under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but denied certification for declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2), carefully analyzing the requirements for class treatment. The proposed class, consisting of over 26,000 Kansas policyholders whose totaled vehicle claims were subject to the negotiation adjustment, satisfied the numerosity requirement, as joinder of all members would be impracticable. The court identified common questions of law and fact, including whether State Farm's negotiation adjustment breached the insurance policies and whether its removal accurately reflected ACV. These questions were central to the class's claims and capable of generating common answers. Lead Plaintiff Sharon Schlehuber's claims were typical of the class, as she challenged the same negotiation adjustment applied to all class members' claims. State Farm's arguments, such as Schlehuber's alleged profit on her Lexus claim, were rejected, as her objections to the adjustment aligned with the class's interests. The court also found Schlehuber and her counsel adequate to represent the class, noting their diligent prosecution and absence of conflicts. Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance and Superiority: The court found that common issues predominated, as Plaintiffs' theory -- that the negotiation adjustment artificially reduced ACV -- was susceptible to classwide proof through expert testimony and Audatex data. State Farm's arguments about individualized damages were unpersuasive, as Plaintiffs' damages model, which calculated damages as the adjustment amount itself, could be applied uniformly. The court concluded that a class action was superior, given the modest value of individual claims (averaging $731) and the efficiency of resolving common issues in a single proceeding. The court denied certification for declaratory relief, as the primary relief sought was monetary damages, making Rule 23(b)(2) inappropriate. The court noted that any declaratory relief would be incidental to the monetary claims, further justifying denial under this rule. The court denied State Farm's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact that warranted trial. Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence, including Merritt's expert report, to create a jury question on whether the negotiation adjustment caused underpayment below ACV. State Farm's argument that Schlehuber agreed to her Nissan's valuation in her deposition was countered by her testimony objecting to the adjustment, creating a factual dispute for trial. As far as the Nissan Claim is concerned State Farm's "accord and satisfaction" defense failed, as there was no evidence Schlehuber accepted payment as full settlement of her claim. Lexus Claim too failed as State Farm's argument that Schlehuber profited on her Lexus claim was undermined by her evidence that the ACV was higher than the amount paid, raising a triable issue. The court granted summary judgment to State Farm on prospective relief, as Plaintiffs lacked standing. State Farm had ceased using the negotiation adjustment in Kansas, and Plaintiffs showed no imminent harm to justify injunctive relief. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CcZcCS from PacerMonitor.com. STEINHAFELS INC: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Steinhafels, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05415 (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.steinhafels.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 the website, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant'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. Steinhafels, Inc. operates the website that offers furniture for various rooms, including tables, chairs, and desks, as well as home decor accessories, mattresses, and related bedding items such as blankets, pillows, and protectors.[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 STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Missouri Customer Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Stifel Financial Corp. continues to defend itself against putative class actions pending in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri, 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. In March 2024, the Company and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in multiple putative class actions pending in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The class action claims have been brought on behalf of customers who had cash deposits or balances in the Stifel Insured Bank Deposit Program or the Stifel Insured Bank Deposit Program for Retirement Accounts, alleging various contractual, fiduciary and statutory claims based on the allegation that the Company failed to pay a reasonable rate of interest on its cash sweep products. Together, the complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, equitable relief, and treble damages. "The cases are at an early stage with a request for consolidation currently pending. While there can be no assurance that we will be successful, we intend to vigorously defend the claims," the Company stated. SYMPHONY SPACE: Faces Knowles Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SYMPHONY SPACE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04156 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.symphonyspace.org, 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 11, 2025, in an attempt to purchase an Exhibition On Screen-John Singer Sargent: Fashion & Swagger admission ticket from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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. He 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. The Symphony Space, Inc. operates the Symphony Space online interactive website and performing arts establishment across the U.S.[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 TARGET CORPORATION: Alarcon Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Orlando Alarcon and Junjie Tan, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2510029 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-0127. The Plaintiffs' Complaint contains nine causes of action alleging: Unfair Competition; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses; Failure to Provide Wages When Due; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages, all in Violation of Cal. Lab Codes, the Applicable IWC Wage Order and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. Taylor Wemmer, Esq. Joseph J. Kim, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 858.677.1400 Fax: 858.677.1401 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com taylor.wemmer@us.dlapiper.com joseph.kim@us.dlapiper.com TARGET CORPORATION: Brown Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Veronica Brown, Melvin Velasquez, Nicole Flick, Jasmine Young, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01321-BTM-MMP (S.D. Cal., May 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Elizabeth Ybarra, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 297-3807 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: cybarra@sirillp.com TERADATA CORP: Continues to Defend "Ostrander" in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Teradata 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 a securities class action filed in the Southern District of California. On June 14, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"), captioned Ostrander v. Teradata Corporation, No. 24-cv-01034 (S.D. Cal.). The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of federal securities laws related to statements concerning the Company's business and 2023 financial outlook for Total ARR and Public Cloud ARR. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the period from February 13, 2023 to February 12, 2024 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On December 6, 2024, the lead plaintiff in the case filed an amended complaint, after which the Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 4, 2025. Briefing on the motion is expected to conclude later in 2025. The Company said it disputes the allegations in the amended complaint and intends to defend the case vigorously. The case is at an early stage, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential financial loss or cost that could result from this lawsuit. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Canadian Court Grants Class Status in Opioids ------------------------------------------------------------------ Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a Canadian court has granted a motion for class certification in the opioids class suit. Teva, certain of its subsidiaries and other defendants, are defending claims and putative class action lawsuits in Canada related to the manufacture, sale, marketing and distribution of opioid medications. The lawsuits include a claim by the Province of British Columbia on behalf of itself and a putative class of other federal and provincial governments, and claims of municipalities, First Nations, and persons who used opioids on behalf of themselves and putative classes. In November and December 2023, the British Columbia Supreme Court held a hearing regarding preliminary motions, including plaintiffs' certification motion, which remain pending. On January 22, 2025, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The deadline to appeal this decision was February 21, 2025. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court OKs $126MM Deal With Hospitals --------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a court has approved the national settlement agreement where Teva will pay up to $126 million in cash to hospitals. Since May 2014, more than 3,500 complaints have been filed by various governmental agencies and private plaintiffs in U.S. state and federal courts with respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates and several other pharmaceutical companies, the vast majority of which have been resolved. Cases brought by third party payers, both as individual cases and as class actions, remain. The majority of the remaining cases are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio (the "MDL Opioid Proceeding"). These cases assert claims under similar provisions of different state laws and generally allege that the defendants engaged in improper marketing and distribution of Teva's branded opioids, including ACTIQ(R) and FENTORA(R), and also assert claims related to Teva's generic opioid products. In addition, over 950 personal injury plaintiffs, including various putative class actions of individuals, have asserted personal injury and wrongful death claims in over 600 complaints, nearly all of which are consolidated in the MDL Opioid Proceeding. Furthermore, approximately 100 personal injury complaints allege that Anda (in addition to naming other distributors and manufacturers) failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent their abuse and diversion. Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, non-economic damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Certain plaintiffs seek damages for all costs associated with addressing the abuse of opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs specify multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged damages. In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several damages among all defendants. All but a handful of these cases are stayed in the MDL Opioid Proceedings. In June 2023, Teva finalized and fully resolved its nationwide settlement agreement with the states and litigating subdivisions. Under the financial terms of the nationwide settlement agreement with the states and subdivisions, Teva will pay up to $4.25 billion (including the already settled cases), spread over 13 years. This total includes the supply of up to $1.2 billion of Teva's generic version of Narcan(R) (naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray), valued at wholesale acquisition cost, over 10 years or cash at 20% of the wholesale acquisition cost ($240 million) in lieu of product. In September 2024, Teva reached and finalized an agreement with the City of Baltimore to settle its opioid-related claims for a total of $80 million (of which $35 million was paid in December 2024 and the remainder will be paid by July 1, 2025), averting a trial that was scheduled to begin on September 16, 2024. With its settlement with the City of Baltimore, Teva has settled with 100% of the U.S. states and litigating political subdivisions and the Native American tribes (the "Tribes"). Teva's estimated cash payments between 2025 and 2029 for all opioids settlements are: $423 million paid in 2025 (of which $30 million was paid as of March 31, 2025), $363 million payable in 2026; $364 million payable in 2027; $385 million payable in 2028; and $339 million payable in 2029. These payments are subject to change based on various factors including, but not limited to, timing of payments, most favored nations clauses associated with prior settlements, and the states' elections to take Teva's generic version of Narcan(R) (naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray). The remaining payments, subject to adjustments, will be paid beyond 2030. Various Teva affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in opioids cases initiated by approximately 500 U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers asserting opioid-related claims, including public nuisance. Specifically, the lawsuits brought by the hospitals allege that they have incurred financial harm from increased operating costs for treating patients whose underlying illnesses are purportedly exacerbated or complicated by opioid addiction. In September 2024, Teva and the representatives for acute care hospitals finalized the terms of a proposed class settlement agreement. No eligible hospitals or healthcare providers opted out. On March 4, 2025, the court overseeing the hospital cases granted final approval for the settlement. Under the financial terms of the proposed national settlement agreement, Teva will pay up to $126 million in cash, spread over 18 years, and supply up to $49 million of Teva's generic version of Narcan(R) (naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray), valued at wholesale acquisition cost, over 7 years. In light of the nationwide settlement agreement between Teva and the States' Attorneys General and their subdivisions, Teva's indemnification obligations arising from Teva's acquisition of the Actavis Generics business for opioid-related claims, prior settlements reached with Louisiana, Texas, Rhode Island, Florida, San Francisco, West Virginia, New York, the Tribes, Nevada and the City of Baltimore, the agreement in principle with the hospitals discussed above, as well as an estimate for a number of items including, but not limited to, costs associated with administering injunctive terms, and most favored nations clauses associated with prior settlements, the Company has recorded a provision. The provision is a reasonable estimate of the ultimate costs for Teva's opioids settlements, after discounting payments to their net present value. Opioid-related lawsuits brought against Teva by dozens of third-party payers, such as unions and welfare funds, remain pending. A reasonable upper end of a range of loss cannot be determined for the entirety of the remaining opioid-related cases. An adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations may involve large monetary penalties, damages, and/or other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief and could have a material and adverse effect on Teva's reputation, business, results of operations and cash flows. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Discovery Ongoing in Asthma Inhaler Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed that discovery is ongoing in the class action alleging that Teva engaged in anticompetitive conduct to suppress generic competition to its branded QVAR(R) asthma inhalers, 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. In May 2023, certain end-payor plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Teva and a number of its affiliates, alleging that Teva engaged in anticompetitive conduct to suppress generic competition to its branded QVAR(R) asthma inhalers in violation of state and federal antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. On May 7, 2024, the court granted Teva's motion to dismiss in part and denied its motion in part. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claim that Teva had engaged in "sham litigation" and certain of plaintiffs' state antitrust and consumer protection claims, but permitted the case to proceed on the remainder of plaintiffs' allegations. On June 18, 2024, Teva answered in all cases and simultaneously moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). On June 28, 2024, Teva stipulated to the dismissal of the two direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims, with prejudice. On November 6, 2024, the court granted in part Teva's Rule 12(c) motion, dismissing plaintiffs' reverse payment claim, while denying the remainder of Teva's motion. Discovery in this case is ongoing. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Wins Dismissal of DOJ PAP Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited won dismissal of the class suit relating to the U.S. Attorney Office's complaints arising from the company's donations to patient assistance programs, 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. In March 2017, Teva received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston, Massachusetts requesting documents related to Teva's donations to patient assistance programs. In August 2020, the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston, Massachusetts brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging causes of action under the federal False Claims Act and for unjust enrichment (the "DOJ PAP Complaint"). It was alleged that Teva's donations to certain 501(c)(3) charities that provided financial assistance to multiple sclerosis patients violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. On October 10, 2024, Teva entered into a settlement agreement with the DOJ to resolve these claims. Teva will pay $425 million over 6 years under the terms of the settlement -- $19 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, $34 million in 2025, $49 million in each of 2026 and 2027, $99 million in 2028, and $175 million in 2029 -- which includes no admission of wrongdoing. The case was dismissed with prejudice on November 19, 2024. Teva has recognized a provision for the resolution of this case. Additionally, on January 8, 2021, Humana, Inc. ("Humana") filed an action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida based on the allegations raised in the DOJ PAP Complaint. In June 2023, Teva filed a joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint, together with co-defendant Advanced Care Scripts, Inc., and on April 29, 2025 the court granted the motion to dismiss. On November 17, 2022, United Healthcare also filed an action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey based on the conduct alleged in the DOJ PAP Complaint, and on February 29, 2024, United Healthcare filed an amended complaint. On March 28, 2025, Teva moved for summary judgment limited to the statute of limitations defense as per the court's order, and that motion is pending. On August 16, 2024, several MSP Recovery-related entities filed a putative class action against Teva and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas based on the alleged conduct in the DOJ PAP Complaint. On November 18, 2024, Teva filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on April 30, 2025, the Court granted the motion, dismissing all claims against Teva and its co-defendants. TIP-TOP ROOFING: 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.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act: -- staying class certification pending the Court's ruling on the Defendants' previously filed motion to compel arbitration; and -- staying and/or extending the briefing deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until the pending motions to compel arbitration have been decided and/or until the parties have an opportunity to conduct pre-class certification discovery. 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, SEE Holdings, LLC d/b/a Southend Exteriors, Professional Builders Supply Commercial PRESRE-GVL, LLC, SEE Holdings, LLC d/b/a Southend Exteriors, Professional Builders Supply, LLC d/b/a Professional Builders Supply Commercial PRESRE-GVL, LLC, and D.R. Horton, Inc. Tip-Top is a locally owned and operated full service roofing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nVnK0C at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Philip P. Cristaldi, III, Esq. Scott H. Winograd, Esq. ROSS & CRISTALDI, LLC 765 Long Point Road, Ste. 101 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 329-4040 E-mail: pcristaldi@rclawsc.com swinograd@rclawsc.com TRANS UNION: Jackson Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONNIE L. JACKSON, on behalf of Herself and all similarly situated individuals, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01069-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion to seal certain materials filed in connection with her Motion for Class Certification of Claims Against the Defendant. TransUnion is a global information and insights company that provides data and analytics to businesses and consumers. It helps businesses make informed decisions, assess risk, and manage their bottom lines. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FFi8NF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett E. Dressler, Esq. SELLERS, AYERS, DORTCH & LYONS, P.A. 301 S. McDowell Rd, Suite 410 Charlotte, NC 28204 Telephone: (704) 377-5050 Facsimile: (704) 339-0172 E-mail: bdressler@sellersayers.com - and - Drew D. Sarrett, Esq. Leonard Anthony Bennett CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 626 East Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 905-9900 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: drew@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com - and - Stephen Leigh Flores, Esq. FLORES LAW, PLLC 530 E. Main St., Ste. 320 Richmond, VA 23219-2412 Telephone: (804) 238-9911 Facsimile: (804) 203-8717 E-mail: stephen@floreslawva.com TRANS UNION: Jackson Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONNIE L. JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01069-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for class certification of claims against the Defendant. TransUnion is a global information and insights company. A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E6VlD5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett E. Dressler, Esq. SELLERS, AYERS, DORTCH & LYONS, P.A. 301 S. McDowell Rd, Suite 410 Charlotte, NC 28204 Telephone: (704) 377-5050 Facsimile: (704) 339-0172 E-mail: bdressler@sellersayers.com - and - Drew D. Sarrett, Esq. Leonard Anthony Bennett CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 626 East Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 905-9900 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: drew@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com - and - Stephen Leigh Flores, Esq. FLORES LAW, PLLC 530 E. Main St., Ste. 320 Richmond, VA 23219-2412 Telephone: (804) 238-9911 Facsimile: (804) 203-8717 E-mail: stephen@floreslawva.com TRUSTWELL LIVING: Bowens Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- SCHLAUN BOWENS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTWELL LIVING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01003 (N.D. Ohio, May 15, 2025) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt Resident Care Partner from approximately 2023 to January 30, 2025, at its facility in Mansfield, OH. During their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not fully and properly paid for all overtime wages because Defendant required a daily meal break deduction even when they were unable to take a fully uninterrupted meal break, says the suit. Trustwell Living, LLC provides independent living, assisted living, and memory care to its clients at its various facilities throughout Ohio and the country. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Uber Eats Service Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- kmlaw.ca reports that the class action concerns an allegedly hidden "Service Fee" charged by Uber Technologies, Inc. and its Canadian subsidiaries (collectively "Uber") on Uber Eats delivery orders, in addition to the advertised Delivery Fee. The class action alleges that Uber misrepresented the true cost of delivery by only fully disclosing the Service Fee at the final stage of the transaction, often obscured under a "Taxes & Other Fees" line item, a practice known as drip pricing. The lawsuit further alleges that for "Uber One" members, who are marketed benefits such as no delivery fees on eligible orders, the imposition of the Service Fee, which is really a delivery fee as it only applies to delivery orders, constitutes a breach of contract and negates the advertised benefit of the subscription. The action claims these practices are false and misleading, and violate the Competition Act and the Ontario Consumer Protection Act as well as other equivalent provincial consumer protection statutes, leading to users paying more for delivery than initially represented. The proposed class action is brought on behalf of "every person resident in Canada, who on or after May 16, 2023, placed an order for delivery using Uber Eats and paid a Service Fee". For more information, please contact us at toll free 1-855-595-2628 or email at ubereatsclassaction@kmlaw.ca [GN] UNITED STATES: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Response OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pasula, et al., v. US Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00156 (D.N.H., Filed April 18, 2025), the Hon. Judge Samantha D. Elliott entered an order granting motion to extend time to respond to the Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior, home, or public security ministries in other countries.[CC] UNITED STATES: Faces Brown Suit Over Racial Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- MARK LANE BROWN, ECO Farm formerly known as Ghost Horse Ranch and Cattle Company, ECO Company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BROOKE LESLIE ROLLINS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or the current Director, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00162-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn., May 15, 2025) alleges the Defendants of engaging in discriminatory actions based on race against the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Brown alleges that Mr. Tony Steed proceeded to retaliate against him resulting in a ban letter using his office as a United States Department of Agriculture Director. The USDA is a federal government agency responsible for providing leadership and support on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues. [BN] The Plaintiff, of Sweetwater, Tennessee, appears pro se. UNITY SOFTWARE: California Court Dismisses Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Unity Software Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the Northern District of California has dismissed the putative securities class action captioned In re Unity Software Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:22-cv-3962 (N.D. Cal.). On July 6, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executives (the "Securities Class Action"). The complaint was amended on March 24, 2023, and captioned In re Unity Software Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:22-cv-3962 (N.D. Cal.). The operative complaint names as defendants Unity, its former Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, and former General Manager of Operate Solutions, as well as Unity shareholders, Sequoia Capital, Silver Lake Group, and David Helgason. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and alleges that the Company and its executives made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose issues with the Company's product platform and the likely impact of those issues on the Company's fiscal 2022 guidance. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and entities (other than the defendants) who acquired Unity securities between May 11, 2021 and May 10, 2022, and requests unspecified damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice on March 12, 2025 and entered judgement on April 14, 2025. On November 22, 2022, a derivative suit, captioned Movva v. Unity Software, Inc., et al., Case 5:22-cv-07416 (N.D. Cal.) (the "Movva Suit"), was filed by a purported stockholder against eleven of the Company's current and former officers and directors. The complaint, which asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, borrows the allegations of the Securities Class Action, and recasts them as derivative claims. On December 16, 2022, a related derivative suit, captioned Duong vs. Unity Software Inc., et al., Case 5:22-c-08926 (N.D. Cal.), was filed by a purported stockholder against the same defendants as in the Movva Suit (the "Duong Suit," and together with the Movva Suit, the "Federal Derivative Actions"). The two Federal Derivative Actions were consolidated after the parties jointly moved to do so. The Federal Derivative Actions are currently stayed. On May 8, 2023, a stockholder derivative suit, captioned Wen v. Botha, et al., Case No. 2023-0499 (the “Wen Suit”), was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case was filed by a purported Unity stockholder against twelve of the Company's current and former officers and directors, and asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. On December 15, 2023, a stockholder derivative suit, captioned Flesner v. Riccitiello, et al., Case No. 2023-1240 (the "Flesner Suit" and together with the Wen Suit, the "Delaware Derivative Actions"), was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case was filed by a purported Unity stockholder against twelve of the Company's current and former officers and directors, and asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and waste of corporate assets, as well as insider trading claims against the individual defendants. As with the Federal Derivative Actions, the Delaware Derivative Actions borrow the allegations of the Securities Class Action, and recast them as derivative claims. The Delaware Derivative Actions are currently stayed. It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from shareholders, with respect to these same or other matters, naming Unity and/or its officers and directors as defendants. The Company says it disputes these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters. UPHOLD HQ: Court Dismisses Suit over CredEarn Program ----------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Uphold HQ Inc.'s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case captioned as ADDISON SANDOVAL, et.al, v. UPHOLD HQ INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-CV-7579-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.) with prejudice. The complaint is dismissed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim for relief. This is a putative class action brought by Addison Sandoval, Lionel Ducote, Nicholas King, and Richard Neal, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Defendant Uphold HQ Inc. Plaintiffs are United States citizens who invested in Defendant's CredEarn program, marketed by Uphold in conjunction with Cred Inc., a separate company that later filed for bankruptcy. Plaintiffs allege that they read and relied on Defendant's marketing statements, which described the CredEarn program as "safe," "secured," "fully hedged," and functioning like a "traditional banking product" with high interest rates of up to 10%–13%. These representations, according to Plaintiffs, were prominently featured in Uphold's promotional materials, leading them to believe that CredEarn was a low-risk investment opportunity comparable to conventional financial products. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's marketing statements were false and misleading because the CredEarn program was neither safe nor hedged, and because they lost access to their invested funds when Cred collapsed in October 2020 due to financial mismanagement and exposure to high-risk Chinese microloans. The primary basis for Plaintiffs' allegation of falseness is that Defendant failed to disclose Cred's precarious financial condition and the inherent risks associated with its investment practices. Plaintiffs assert that they would not have invested in CredEarn -- or at least would not have invested as much as they did -- had they known that Defendant's marketing statements were unsubstantiated or that Cred's operations were financially unstable. On behalf of a putative class of all individuals in the United States who invested in the CredEarn program, Plaintiffs allege these claims for relief: (1) violation of New York General Business Law Section 349, which prohibits deceptive business practices; (2) common law fraud, based on alleged misrepresentations in Defendant's marketing of the CredEarn program. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and unspecified equitable relief for their GBL Section 349 cause of action, as well as damages for their common law fraud cause of action. They contend that Defendant's deceptive practices caused significant financial losses, as their investments became inaccessible following Cred's bankruptcy. Characterizing the complaint as "deficiently pled," Defendant moves to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant argues that the Second Amended Complaint fails to allege specific, actionable misrepresentations, lacks context for the alleged deceptive statements, and does not plausibly demonstrate that Uphold had knowledge of Cred's financial troubles prior to its collapse. In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, pursuant to the standards set forth in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The Court evaluates whether the complaint pleads sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief, drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs but disregarding conclusory allegations. Defendant contends that the marketing statements identified by Plaintiffs -- such as describing CredEarn as "safe," "secured," "fully hedged," or akin to a "traditional banking product" -- are either non-actionable puffery or insufficiently supported by specific allegations of falsity. Defendant further asserts that a disclaimer presented to users before transferring funds to Cred's platform clearly stated that CredEarn was a third-party product offered solely by Cred, primarily to non-U.S. persons, thus negating any reasonable consumer's reliance on Uphold's representations. Upon careful review of the Complaint, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts to establish the falsity of Defendant's marketing statements. According to the court, descriptions such as "functions like a traditional banking product" are deemed non-actionable puffery, lacking the specificity required to constitute a material misrepresentation, as established in cases like DH Cattle Holdings Co. v. Smith, 195 A.D.2d 202 (1994). Additionally, Defendant's disclaimer explicitly informed users that they were leaving Uphold's platform and that CredEarn was operated by Cred, undermining Plaintiffs' claim that Uphold created a false impression of control or responsibility. The Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to provide context for how a reasonable consumer would interpret Uphold's statements alongside Cred's terms or disclosures, further weakening their claim. Moreover, the Second Amended Complaint does not plausibly allege that Defendant had access to or knowledge of Cred's true financial condition prior to its collapse, a critical element for demonstrating deceptive intent. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' GBL Section 349 claim is granted with prejudice. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant committed common law fraud by intentionally misrepresenting the safety and security of the CredEarn program. Defendant moves to dismiss this cause of action, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to plead actionable misrepresentations, scienter, or reasonable reliance, which are essential elements of a fraud claim. The Court finds that because Plaintiffs failed to meet the lower threshold for a GBL Section 349 claim, which requires only a showing of materially misleading conduct, their fraud claim -- subject to a more stringent standard of proof -- must also fail. The absence of specific allegations regarding the falsity of Defendant's statements, combined with the effect of the disclaimer, renders the fraud claim deficiently pled. Therefore, Plaintiffs' cause of action for common law fraud is dismissed with prejudice. The procedural history of the case provides further context for the dismissal. Plaintiffs initially filed their complaint in September 2021, followed by a First Amended Complaint in December 2021. Judge Broderick dismissed the First Amended Complaint in March 2024, granting leave to amend due to deficiencies in alleging deceptive practices or plausible fraud. The Second Amended Complaint, filed thereafter, was transferred to Chief Judge Swain. Despite multiple opportunities to amend, Plaintiffs failed to cure the deficiencies in their pleadings, leading the Court to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, indicating that further amendments would be futile. VALLEY GYM CORP: Woodum Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Gym Corp. The case is styled as Marlin Woodum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Valley Gym Corp. doing business as: SpeakEasy Fitness, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-61026-XXXX (S.D. Fla, May 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Valley Gym Corp doing business as SpeakEasy Fitness, LLC -- https://www.speakeasy-fitness.com/ -- is a fitness center in that offers a range of exercise equipment and classes for individuals looking to stay active and healthy.[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 VANGUARD GROUP: Court Rejects $135MM Settlement ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE VANGUARD CHESTER FUNDS LITIGATION., Case No. 2:22-cv-00955-JFM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Murphy entered a memorandum rejecting the proposed settlement. The Court found that the proposed settlement is not "fair, reasonable, and adequate" as required by Rule 23(e). The SEC settlement guarantees class members the exact benefit that would have been provided by this proposed settlement -- but without deduction for attorneys' fees or requiring claims to be extinguished. The SEC settlement, issued on Jan. 17, 2025, requires Vanguard to pay $135 million in remediation to harmed investors for the same conduct addressed in this case. While most of the $135 million must be paid to the SEC's Fair Fund, paragraph 44 permits Vanguard to offset $40 million of that from settlement in this case (the "offset provision"). The proposed settlement reduces the $40 million as follows — $13,333,333.33 goes to attorneys, $985,000 is deducted for litigation expenses, $240,000 is paid to named plaintiffs The Plaintiffs are harmed investors who say that Vanguard disregarded viable alternatives that could have accomplished the same goal without the costs. Vanguard offers target retirement funds. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bNhztM at no extra charge.[CC] VAXART INC: Parties Seek Approval of Class & Subclass Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al., (re: VAXART, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving the form and manner of notice to the class and subclass: The Court appoints A.B. Data to serve as the notice administrator to implement the Notice Plan set out in the Walter Declaration and approved herein. On Dec. 17, 2024, the Court certified a Class of "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Vaxart common stock, or purchased call options or sold put options thereon, between June 25, 2020, and July 24, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." The Court also certified a Subclass of "all persons or entities who purchased publicly traded Vaxart common stock contemporaneously with the June 26 and 29, 2020, sales of Vaxart common stock by the Armistice defendants and were damaged thereby." Vaxart is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a range of oral recombinant pill vaccines A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YRkc1X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Raffi Melanson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com raffim@hbsslaw.com - and - William C. Fredericks, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com wfredericks@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com The Defendants are represented by: Neal R. Marder, Esq. Joshua A. Rubin, Esq. Lillian Rand, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com rubinj@akingump.com lrand@akingump.com VERISK ANALYTICS: Bid to Dismiss MDL No. 3115 Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, 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 plaintiffs' claims in the case captioned In Re: Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Litigation, MDL Case No. 1:24-md-03115-TWT remains pending. As of April 19, 2024, various Plaintiffs filed a total of twenty separate putative class action lawsuits, sixteen against General Motors LLC ("GM"), OnStar LLC ("OnStar"), LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. ("LexisNexis") and Verisk Analytics Inc. in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Eastern District of Michigan, Central District of California, District of New Jersey, Southern District of New York, Northern District of Alabama, Northern District of Illinois and District of South Carolina, and four against Hyundai Motor America ("Hyundai") and Verisk in the Central District of California and District of New Jersey, all of which have been dismissed to date. The Complaints generally allege that the auto manufacturer Defendants collected consumers' driver behavior data through vehicle software, transmitted it to LexisNexis and Verisk, and that LexisNexis and Verisk shared the data with auto insurance companies, without the individuals' knowledge or consent. Plaintiffs seek certification of both nationwide classes of individuals and subclasses of various state residents who had their vehicle's driving data collected by Defendants and shared with a third party without their consent. The Plaintiffs also seek actual, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and other costs. On June 7, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all GM-related lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (In Re: Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Litigation, MDL Case No. 1:24-md-03115-TWT). All discovery proceedings have been stayed. The matters pending against Verisk in the MDL were voluntarily dismissed on December 13, 2024, and a new putative class action, Adam Dinitz, et al. v. Verisk Analytics, Inc. ("Dinitz"), was filed in the District of New Jersey federal court, Case No. 24-11157, to include those dismissed matters and additional named Plaintiffs. Dinitz was transferred to the Northern District of Georgia to be part of the consolidated MDL. A related amended Master Consolidated class action Complaint was also filed in the MDL on December 13, 2024. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on April 14, 2025. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to these and other associated matters, as they are still in their early stages, the Company stated. VERRA MOBILITY: Awaits Final OK of Class Settlement in "Brantley" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Verra Mobility 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 is awaiting final court approval of the class settlement in the case captioned Brantley v. City of Gretna. Brantley v. City of Gretna is a class action lawsuit filed in the 24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana against the City of Gretna (the "City") and its safety camera vendor, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. in April 2016. The Company acquired Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. as part of its June 2021 purchase of Redflex Holdings Limited. The plaintiff class, which was certified on March 30, 2021, alleges that the City's safety camera program was implemented and operated in violation of local ordinances and the state constitution, including that the City's hearing process violated the plaintiffs' due process rights for lack of a "neutral" arbiter of liability for traffic infractions. Plaintiffs seek recovery of traffic infraction fines paid. The City and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. appealed the trial court's ruling granting class certification, which was denied and their petition for discretionary review of the certification ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court was declined. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and preliminary approval was granted by the court in April 2025. A final settlement amount has not yet been determined and requires final approval from the court. VETERANS GUARDIAN: Ford UDTPA Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 certifying the following Classes: (1) Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) Initial Claim Class: "All veterans who paid Veterans Guardian in connection with preparing an initial claim for VA Disability Compensation under a contract in substantially the same form as the Consulting Service Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Consolidated Complaint." (2) UDTPA Non-Initial Claim Class: "All veterans who paid Veterans Guardian a fee in connection with preparing a noninitial claim for VA Disability Compensation under a contract in substantially the same form as the Consulting Service Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Consolidated Complaint." (3) NCDCA Class: "All veterans who received an email invoice from Veterans Guardian in connection with a claim for VA Disability Compensation that is in substantially the same email invoice attached as Exhibit B to the Consolidated Complaint." The Plaintiffs requests that the Court grant their motion and enter an order granting class certification for the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act -- Initial Claim Class, the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act -- Non-Initial Claim Class, and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act Class, appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel, and appointing the names Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. Veterans is a pre-filing consulting firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NnKPxj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK P.A. 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com - and - Jeff Osterwise, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 191013 Telephone: (215) 875-4656 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: josterwise@bm.net scarson@bm.net rraghavan@bm.net WALMART INC: Joint Ex Parte Application for Stay Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eddie Golikov v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08211-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order denying the Joint Ex Parte Application for stay. Accordingly, a stay is not warranted because the first two factors are not met. Starting with the first factor, the Court is not convinced that Defendant is likely to succeed on the Motion or Petition. As to the Motion, Plaintiff has stated that she intends to oppose, and that opposition has yet to be filed. The Court hesitates to evaluate Defendant's likelihood of success without the benefit of Plaintiff’s opposition. As to the Petition, Defendant notes that it has received support from multiple amici, and points to statistics regarding higher success rates by petitions with amici support. However, petitions are not judged by the number of amici. While there may be some correlation between amici and success, as presumably amici tend to support meritorious petitions, the Court hesitates to rely on amici to measure of one’s likelihood of success. Turning to the second factor, the Court is not convinced that any resulting irreparable harm would be significant enough to justify a stay without a likelihood of success. The case concerns a class action over allegedly mislabeled avocado oil. Eddie Golikov alleged that she purchased a bottle of avocado oil from Walmart Inc. that stated that it contained only avocado oil, when it allegedly contained undisclosed adulterants. On Feb. 27, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and largely denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Walmart operates a chain of hypermarkets (also called supercenters), and discount department stores. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z4bwC6 at no extra charge.[CC] WARBURG PINCUS: Chancery Court Rejects CityMD Merger Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted defendants' motions to dismiss, with prejudice, in the case styled Faiz Khan v. Warburg Pincus, LLC et al., C.A. No. 2024-0523-LWW (Del. Ch.) . Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will issued a final ruling dismissing plaintiffs' claims in their entirety with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contractual relations, or unjust enrichment. The dispute arose from the merger of CityMD, an urgent care provider, with Summit Medical Group, forming WP CityMD Topco LLC. The plaintiffs, Dr. Faiz Khan and Dr. Ralph Finger, were minority Class B unitholders, while private equity firm Warburg Pincus and its affiliates held majority Class A units. The Limited Liability Company Agreement granted Class B unitholders tag-along rights, allowing them to participate in sales of Company units on equal terms with the WP Investors. The Agreement also permitted amendments adversely affecting a class of unitholders if approved by a majority of that class. In 2022, the Company negotiated a merger with VillageMD, a primary care provider backed by Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. The merger offered disparate consideration: Class A unitholders received all cash, while Class B unitholders received a mix of cash and VillageMD equity. To facilitate this, the Company amended the LLC Agreement to eliminate the tag-along rights, securing approval from a majority of Class B unitholders via an Information Statement. The plaintiffs later sued, alleging coercion and unfair treatment after the VillageMD equity lost value post-merger. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The LLC Agreement explicitly addressed amendments and class voting rights, leaving no gap for the implied covenant to fill. The Court emphasized that the implied covenant cannot override express contractual terms or rewrite the parties' bargain. The plaintiffs' contention that the LLC Agreement contained an "implicit term" prohibiting the elimination of tag-along rights was dismissed. The Court noted that Section 14.04 of the LLC Agreement expressly permitted amendments adversely affecting a class with majority consent. The plaintiffs' reliance on corporate fiduciary duty cases like In re Delphi Financial Group was misplaced, as the LLC Agreement waived fiduciary duties and allowed the WP Investors to act in their own interests. The Court rejected the plaintiffs' disclosure-related arguments, finding no implied duty of disclosure under the LLC Agreement. The Information Statement provided sufficient detail about the Amendment's impact, and the plaintiffs had access to counsel. The Court stated, "The implied covenant, like the rest of our contracts jurisprudence, is meant to enforce the intent of the parties, and not to modify that expressed intent when remorse has set in." With respect to the claims for tortious interference with contractual relations, the Court dismissed these claims because they hinged on an underlying breach of contract, which the plaintiffs failed to plead. Since the LLC Agreement permitted the Amendment and the WP Investors acted within their contractual rights, there was no wrongful interference. The unjust enrichment claim against Warburg and the WP Investors was dismissed because the LLC Agreement governed the parties' relationship. The Court held that unjust enrichment cannot be used to circumvent a comprehensive contract or extend obligations to non-parties like Warburg. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs released their claims by signing letters of transmittal. While the Court acknowledged factual distinctions from Cigna Health & Life Insurance Co. v. Audax Health Solutions, Inc., it declined to rule on the enforceability of the releases, as the Complaint failed on the merits. The Court affirmed the primacy of the LLC Agreement and the parties' contractual bargain. The plaintiffs' attempt to invoke quasi-fiduciary theories under the implied covenant was rejected, reaffirming Delaware's deference to alternative entity agreements that waive fiduciary duties. The case underscores the principle that contractual terms, not equitable expectations, govern disputes in the LLC context. The Court concluded that the LLC Agreement explicitly governed the parties' relationship, leaving no room for the implied covenant to fill gaps or override its terms. WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Class Settlement in Snyder Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Carl Nichols entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion as follows: 1. The proposed settlement is preliminarily approved, subject to further submissions and further findings at the final approval hearing. 2. The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons who made at least one Covered Ticket Purchase, i.e., a single-game ticket to a Nationals home baseball game that was scheduled to occur during the 2023 or 2024 Major League Baseball regular season; where the purchase was made directly from the Nationals on the Nationals or MLB.com websites, by phone, or at the Nationals' box office between March 29, 2023 and March 28, 2024; where the purchaser was 40 years of age or older at the time of ticket purchase; where the purchase was for an Eligible Seat; where the purchaser suffered Actual Damages due to not having access to the "Millennial" or "Young Professional" discount with respect to their purchase; and where the purchaser would have been eligible for the "Millennial" or "Young Professional" discount with respect to their purchase but for their age." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this Action and members of their families; (2) the Defendant, the Defendant's subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Settlement Class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any excluded persons. 3. The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Nick Snyder and David Coyne as the Class Representatives of the Settlement Class, for purposes of settlement. 4. The Court preliminarily appoints Peter Romer Friedman Law PLLC and Willig Williams & Davidson as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class, for purposes of settlement. 5. A Final Approval Hearing will be held on June 18, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 17 to consider final approval of the Settlement in accordance with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Final Approval and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Service Awards for the Class Representatives on or before June 11, 2025. Washington Nationals are an American professional baseball team based in Washington, DC. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YSV6E6 at no extra charge.[CC] WAYNE LOPEZ: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Laccinole Due Oct. 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS LACCINOLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WAYNE M. LOPEZ  d/b/a VARRO LEON, Case No. 3:24-cv-07764-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered a class certification expert and briefing scheduling order: -- Plaintiff's expert disclosures: Aug. 15, 2025 -- Defendant's expert disclosures: Sept. 12, 2025 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures: Sept. 26, 2025 -- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Oct. 10, 2025 Certification -- Defendant's response to Motion Nov. 14, 2025 for Class Certification: -- Plaintiff's reply in support Dec. 3, 2025 of Motion for Class Certification -- Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion Dec. 18, 2025 for Class Certification A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mahBv2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite #340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric J. Troutman, Esq. Puja Amin, Esq. Brittany A. Andres, Esq. TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1550 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 350-3663 Facsimile: (949) 203-8689 E-mail: troutman@troutmanamin.com amin@troutmanamin.com brittany@troutmanamin.com XPO LAST MILE: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYNOR MEJIA LOPEZ, an individual; individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Individuals, v. XPO LAST MILE, INC., A Georgia Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-08976-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing schedule of the Plaintiff's forthcoming motion for class certification as follows: Motion for Class Certification: Due by Dec. 8, 2025 Opposition: Due by Feb. 6, 2026 Reply: Due by Mar. 20, 2026 Hearing: April 10, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., or any time or date thereafter at the Court's convenience XPO provides third-party logistics and last mile delivery services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ELfGwJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Armand R. Kizirian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com armand@boyamianlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Esq. Dahn A. Levine, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Ben.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com Dahn.Levine@jacksonlewis.com ZA RESTAURANT: George Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Syreeta George et al., v. ZA Restaurant Management LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04138-DEH-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order referring George suit to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the following purpose(s): General pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non- dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Specific non-dispositive motion/dispute: class certification Dispositive motion (i.e., motion requiring a report and recommendation). Za is a modern steakhouse. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LH9aDZ at no extra charge.[CC] ZACHARY PIPER: Agyekum Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- AKWASI AGYEKUM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZACHARY PIPER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00842 (E.D. Va., May 15, 2025), seeks to recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as a Recruiter in McLean, Virginia from approximately June 2023 through November 2024. The Plaintiff and other recruiters worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks during the 90-day training period. However, the Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other recruiters as exempt from state and federal overtime laws. As a result, the Defendant did not pay them overtime wages when they worked over 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks, says the suit. Zachary Piper Solutions, LLC is a professional staffing agency headquartered McLean, VA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 609 H St. NE, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com - and - Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.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 ***