250609.mbx

250609.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 9, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 114 Headlines 8102 FOOD CORP: Underpays Market Workers, Soriano Suit Claims A&E GENERAL: Underpays Construction Workers, Santabarbara Claims ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Bates Consolidated Into Stern Data Breach Suit ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Stern and Bates Data Breach Suits Consolidated ACTIVCARE LIVING: Faces Young Wage-and-Hour Suit in California AJP ENTERPRISES: W.D. Washington Still Stays Houston Casualty Suit ALDERFER FAMILY: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Suit for $287,500 ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: $1.7MM Settlement in Cevasco Suit Has Final Nod AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Class Cert Opposition Due Nov. 18 ANGEION GROUP: Faces Suit Over Class Action Payouts Conspiracy ANGEL ADAN: Request to Hold in Abeyance Bid To Certify Class Nixed APPLE INC: Starts to Accept Claims for Privacy Class Settlement APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in NY APRIA HEALTHCARE: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Tisdale Suit ARAMARK CAMPUS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 27, 2026 ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Deal in Cybersecurity Suit Awaits OK ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Proposed Deal in Calif. Labor Suit Awaits OK ATLANTIC INT'L: Awaiting OK of Settlement in "Briseno" ATLANTIC INT'L: Awaiting OK of Settlement in "Reyes" AVANTEUSA LP: McKee Sues Over Consumer Credit Violation in W.D.N.C. AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Bid More Time to File Class Response OK'd AXT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York BATTERIES PLUS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 26, 2026 BEIERSDORF INC: Eucerin Lotions Contain Synthetic Moisturizers BLUEBIRD BIO: Continues to Defend "Gill" Suit in Massachusetts BOOKING.COM: Hotels in Europe Sue Over Overpaid Commissions BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Affirms Exclusion of Testimony in Ruffin BROADMARK REALTY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit C.A.T.5 COMMUNICATIONS: Tapp Sues Over Tower Technicians' Unpaid OT CAPITAL ONE: Bid to Produce Docs in Affiliate Marketing Suit OK'd CATHOLIC HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Sued Over Post-Operative Complications CHOBANI LLC: Judge Dismisses Zero Sugar Label Class Action Lawsuit CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Chappell Appeals Tithing Suit Dismissal CLOUDFLARE INC: Files Motion for Leave to Appeal in Meghji Suit COAST ALUMINUM: FLSA Conditional Cert Filing in Smith Due Dec. 12 COASTAL ORTHOPEDICS: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.4-Mil. COCA-COLA COMPANY: Palmer Sues Over Beverages' Natural Flavors Ads CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert Filing Extended to Feb. 19, 2026 COOPER UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach CV SCIENCES: "Colette" Food Labelling Suit Remains Stayed DG3 NORTH AMERICA: Class Settlement in Cunningham Gets Initial Nod DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Public Safety Class Action Lawsuit EAGLE BANCORP: M&A Investigates Potential Securities Claims EAP OHIO: Seeks Denial of Plaintiffs' Bid for Summary Judgment EMAX HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal EPIQ SYSTEMS: Reduces Class Action Payouts, Whalen Suit Claims FARMERS INSURANCE: Parties Seek Extension of All Deadlines FLORIDA: Federal Judge OKs Class Lawsuit Over Inmates' Rights FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: S.D. New York Dismisses Conley Student Suit FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Engines GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Class Suit Over Vehicles' Defective Shifter GENESCO INC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Edwards Claims GNC HOLDINGS: Class Cert Scheduling Order in Moquete Suit Vacated GOOGLE INC: Former Judge Leads Multi-Billion-Pound Search Ads' Suit GRAIL INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif. GWD CONCEPT: Settles False Discount Class Action Suit for $2.7MM HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Under Seal HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Class Settlement in Story Suit Gets Initial Nod HENRY MAYO: Court Stays McNabb FLSA Suit Pending Arbitration HOLY ROSARY: Silvey EFTA Suit Removed to D. New Hampshire HOMETOWN AMERICA: Bartok Seeks to Certify Class HRM RESOURCES: Must File McCormick Class Cert Response by June 30 HRM RESOURCES: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Briefing Schedule INCORPORATED VILLAGE: Ortiz Suit Seeks ADA Supervised Notice INT'L BROTHERHOOD: Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal OK'd J. DOERER: Kile's Bid for Class Certification Tossed JLE INDUSTRIES: Class Settlement in Martin Suit Has Final Approval JPMORGAN CHASE: Palladino Can't File 2nd Amended Suit, Court Says JUMPP LOGISTICS: Cervenka Seeks to Delay Collective Members Notice KALARIS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Final OK of Securities Suit Deal KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Plaintiffs' Support Reply Due July 15 KRISTI NOEM: Bid for Relief to Vacate Sched Conference Denied KRISTI NOEM: Bid to Stay Administrative Action Gets Partial Nod KRISTI NOEM: Court Modifies Order Granting Class Status LAUNCH PAD: S.D. New York Wants Discovery on Bid to Toss Hoar Suit LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Wilding Alleges LEXISNEXIS RISK: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due June 5, 2026 LOANUNITED.COM LLC: Huff Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification LOUISIANA: Appeals TRO Ruling in Voice Class Suit to 5th Circuit LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order in Gabourel MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Extended MDL 1871: Bid to Certify Class in Liability Suit Partly OK'd MDL 2873: Adams Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products MDL 2873: AFFF Products "Defective," McAuslan Suit Alleges MDL 2873: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Wilder Suit Alleges MDL 2873: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Debate Claims MDL 2873: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Burnfield Says MDL 2873: Faces Benz Suit Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Faces Evans Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS MDL 2873: Faces McGuire Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects MDL 2873: Faces Moszee Suit Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products MDL 2873: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Kanenwisher Sues Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure MDL 2873: Longley Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Neynaber Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Packan Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Scheurich Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Wolvington Sues Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements MDL 3126: Approval Hearing in Data Breach Suit Amended to Oct. 23 MEDSTAR HEALTH: Stimac Sues Over Denied Raises to Staff on Leave MILLENIUM GENERAL: Castro Files Labor Suit in Cal. State Court MORTON COUNTY, ND: Thunderhawk Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. NEIMAN MARCUS: Approval Hearing in Gianne Suit Amended to Oct. 23 NEIMAN MARCUS: Approval Hearing in Pelosi Amended to Oct. 23 NEIMAN MARCUS: Approval Hearing in Reichbart Amended to Oct. 23 NELNET INC: Faces Zocco Suit Over Disclosed Clients' Info to Google NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Certification Due July 25 NEW YORK, NY: Elisa Bid to Add Four New Plaintiffs OK'd NORTHWELL HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Videotaping of Patients ORLANDO HEALTH: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Wins Summary Judgment v. Todd PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Bids to Dismiss Rose Class Suit Tossed as Moot PROASSURANCE CORP: M&A Probes Merger With The Doctors Company PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Knight May File Amended Class Complaint QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Class Settlement in Stewart Gets Initial Nod RALPH LAUREN: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Salazar Due Oct. 15 RB GLOBAL: Controls Construction Equipment Rental Prices, Suit Says RED TIE: Faces Sandell Wage-and-Hour Suit in C.D. California REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 31 RESIDENT VERIFY: Expert Discovery in Manaskie Suit Due July 6 RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Williams Wins Bid for Class Certification RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Seeks More to File Objections in Class Suit SB&C LTD: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Preston Suit SECURIX LLC: Divine Seeks More Time to File Class Certification SHADE STORE: Class Cert Hearing in Crowder Continued to August 6 SHUTTERFLY LLC: Tindol Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages SILVERGATE CAPITAL: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod SIXTH AVENUE: Alexandria Sues Over Website's Access Barriers SNOWFLAKE INC: $10MM Settlement in Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod SOC LLC: Bid to Dismiss Darrough Employee Suit Granted in Part SOC LLC: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss DeFiore Employee Suit SONIC FRANCHISING: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Dalton Says SPIRIT PHARMACEUTICALS: $1.5MM Settlement in Rios Gets Initial OK TALPHERA INC: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Suit Remains Pending TEAM SOCA: Rose Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Workers TOPGOLF PAYROLL: Court Vacates June 16 Class Cert Hearing TRUEACCORD CORP: McKee Files Consumer Credit Suit in W.D.N.C. TRUIST FINANCIAL: Embed Web Trackers Without Consent, Tasker Claims TWITTER INC: Parties in Weinberg Seek to Revise Briefing Schedule ULTIMATE DIAMONDS: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNITED STATES: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Doster v. Air Force UNITED STATES: Appeals Final Judgment Order in Steel Class Suit UNITED STATES: Fact Discovery Completion in Tang Due June 30 UNITED STATES: Hagans Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Parties Must Exchange Initial Disclosures by July 25 UNITED STATES: S.D. New York Dismisses Epperson Suit as Frivolous UPBOUND GROUP: Faces McBurnie Suit in California Court UROGEN PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 28 UROGEN PHARMA: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Must Respond to Fritzco SAC by July 28 VERTIV CORP: Torok Loses Bid for Class Certification VEVOR STORE: Tucker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 1 VNGR BEVERAGE: $8.9MM Non-Reversionary Payment Initially Approved VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit in Conn. VOYAGER DIGITAL: Bankr. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Adversary Suit VROOM INC: NY Court Dismisses All Claims in Securities Suit WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over $3 Million WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Securities Suit WELLNOW URGENT: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit For $4.4 Million WELLPOINT WASHINGTON: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 30 WESTECH SECURITY: Filing for Collective & Class Cert Due July 14 WILHELMINA INT'L: Merits Discovery Ongoing in Labor Class Suit WINDY GATES: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Cantwell Says ZUFFA LLC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit ********* 8102 FOOD CORP: Underpays Market Workers, Soriano Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SORIANO and MARCO ANTONIO ROJAS MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 8102 FOOD CORP. (D/B/A BROOKLYN HARVEST OF BAY RIDGE), MAHMOUD M. ELAYYAN, DANIEL J. WODZENSKI, and MARK LEWIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02995 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful wage deductions. Plaintiffs Soriano and Rojas were employed by the Defendants as a baker and a butcher at Brooklyn Harvest Market from approximately September 26, 2019, until in or about February 2024 and from approximately August 2022 until on or about August 2023, respectively. 8102 Food Corp., doing business as Brooklyn Harvest of Bay Ridge, is a market owner and operator in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 A&E GENERAL: Underpays Construction Workers, Santabarbara Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- FAUSTINO SANTABARBARA and LUIS VILLANUEVA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A&E GENERAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC., A & E GENERAL PAINTING INC., A&E GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP., DANIEL MEHMETAJ, AMARILDO CIZMJA a/k/a ALEJANDRO SIGNA, PETRIT UJKAJ, and ERINA GRECA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02921 (E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide accurate wage notice and statements. Plaintiffs Santabarbara and Villanueva were employed as construction workers by the Defendants from in or about summer 2022 until April 17, 2025 and from January 14, 2025, until April 14, 2025, respectively. A&E General Construction Group Inc. is a construction company in New York. A & E General Painting Inc. is a construction company in New York. A&E General Construction Corp. is a construction company in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES 110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (718) 799-9111 Email: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Bates Consolidated Into Stern Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting the Plaintiffs' amended motion to consolidate the lawsuit styled Bates v. Academy Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00192-JCB (D. Utah), with LAZARO STERN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACADEMY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00015-DBB-DAO (D. Utah). Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. Plaintiffs Lazaro Stern, Celeste Allen, Lisa Kucherry, Peter Smith, and Sharon Thompson, in their individual capacities and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Stern Plaintiffs"), move the Court to consolidate Plaintiff Charly Bates' putative class action with the Stern case. The cases arise from the same relevant background. Defendant Academy Mortgage Corporation is a Utah-based mortgage lender that was the target of an alleged data breach in March 2023. The Plaintiffs, former customers and employees of Academy, allege that their personally identifiable information was accessed by cybercriminal groups during the data breach. They allege that their information has been stolen and published on the dark web due to Academy's failure to adequately safeguard their data. Mr. Stern filed his complaint on Jan. 5, 2024. He moved to consolidate his complaint with Ms. Allen and Ms. Kucherry's complaints on Feb. 1, 2024, which the Court granted. The Stern Plaintiffs then filed their amended complaint. Academy responded by filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Court granted Academy's motion to dismiss without prejudice. On Feb. 12, 2025, the parties filed a Stipulated Motion to set the schedule for the Stern Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. It states that the parties "have conferred about the case and scheduling going forward and have reached an agreement on deadlines" for the Stern Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The Court granted the stipulated motion the next day. On March 24, 2025, the Stern Plaintiffs filed their motion to consolidate. Academy filed its memorandum in opposition on April 7, 2025, and the Stern Plaintiffs replied on April 21, 2025. The Plaintiffs argue that their actions should be consolidated because they arise from the same event (the Data Breach), which harmed the same people (individuals with data exposed in the Breach), and which was caused by the same Defendant (Academy). They argue, among other things, that consolidating the current case with the Bates action is appropriate because they raise similar questions of law and fact, only adding the additional California state law claims. Academy does not respond to any of the Plaintiffs' arguments or offer an argument against consolidation based on the Rule 42 factors. Instead, it argues that the Plaintiffs' motion is "procedurally impossible to grant" because the Court previously dismissed the Stern Plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice. Academy argues that the Court does not preside over the Stern action and, therefore, cannot consolidate the case with the Bates action. Judge Barlow notes that Academy gave its written consent to the Stern Plaintiffs filing an amended complaint, agreeing to set a deadline for the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in this matter, and to deadlines for motions to dismiss briefing. In a stipulated motion filed with this Court, the parties stated that they had conferred about the case and scheduling going forward and have reached an agreement on deadlines for the Plaintiffs' Complaint and motion to dismiss briefing. Academy's argument that it actually did not agree to the Plaintiffs filing a new complaint is contradicted by its signed motion asking the Court to allow a new complaint, Judge Barlow says. Academy's argument that the Court did not grant the Plaintiffs leave to file the amended complaint is also contradicted by the record. The Court's order states that the Plaintiffs "shall file the First Amended [Complaint]" without mentioning any further requirements. Their argument that the Stern Plaintiffs had to file an additional motion, after submitting the stipulated motion, does not establish that the Court should deny the motion to consolidate, Judge Barlow points out. Academy relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., for the proposition that the court "no longer presides" over this case. Academy's argument that the Court does not preside over the case and has no "charge over it" is procedurally inaccurate, Judge Barlow opines. Academy offers no other argument against consolidation; accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate. Pursuant to Rule 42, the Court consolidates the two related actions into the lowest-numbered pending case, Case No. 2:24-cv-00015 (the "Consolidated Action"). No further filings will be made in Bates v. Academy Mortg. Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00192. The Clerk of Court will administratively close this case. All pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance until the filing of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"), which must be filed within fourteen days of this Order. The pending motion to dismiss in Stern v. Academy Mortgage Corporation is denied as moot. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss 30 days after the filing of the Consolidated Complaint. All papers previously filed and served to date in the related actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2fus637p from PacerMonitor.com. ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Stern and Bates Data Breach Suits Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled LAZARO STERN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACADEMY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00015-DBB-DAO (D. Utah), Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting the Plaintiffs' amended motion to consolidate related actions. Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. Plaintiffs Lazaro Stern, Celeste Allen, Lisa Kucherry, Peter Smith, and Sharon Thompson, in their individual capacities and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Stern Plaintiffs"), move the Court to consolidate Plaintiff Charly Bates' putative class action (the "Bates Action," Bates v. Academy Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00192-JCB) with this case. The cases arise from the same relevant background. Defendant Academy Mortgage Corporation is a Utah-based mortgage lender that was the target of an alleged data breach in March 2023. The Plaintiffs, former customers and employees of Academy, allege that their personally identifiable information was accessed by cybercriminal groups during the data breach. They allege that their information has been stolen and published on the dark web due to Academy's failure to adequately safeguard their data. Mr. Stern filed his complaint on Jan. 5, 2024. He moved to consolidate his complaint with Ms. Allen and Ms. Kucherry's complaints on Feb. 1, 2024, which the Court granted. The Stern Plaintiffs then filed their amended complaint. Academy responded by filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Court granted Academy's motion to dismiss without prejudice. On Feb. 12, 2025, the parties filed a Stipulated Motion to set the schedule for the Stern Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. It states that the parties "have conferred about the case and scheduling going forward and have reached an agreement on deadlines" for the Stern Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The Court granted the stipulated motion the next day. On March 24, 2025, the Stern Plaintiffs filed their motion to consolidate. Academy filed its memorandum in opposition on April 7, 2025, and the Stern Plaintiffs replied on April 21, 2025. The Plaintiffs argue that their actions should be consolidated because they arise from the same event (the Data Breach), which harmed the same people (individuals with data exposed in the Breach), and which was caused by the same Defendant (Academy). They argue, among other things, that consolidating the current case with the Bates action is appropriate because they raise similar questions of law and fact, only adding the additional California state law claims. Academy does not respond to any of the Plaintiffs' arguments or offer an argument against consolidation based on the Rule 42 factors. Instead, it argues that the Plaintiffs' motion is "procedurally impossible to grant" because the Court previously dismissed the Stern Plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice. Academy argues that the Court does not preside over the Stern action and, therefore, cannot consolidate the case with the Bates action. Judge Barlow notes that Academy gave its written consent to the Stern Plaintiffs filing an amended complaint, agreeing to set a deadline for the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in this matter, and to deadlines for motions to dismiss briefing. In a stipulated motion filed with this Court, the parties stated that they had conferred about the case and scheduling going forward and have reached an agreement on deadlines for the Plaintiffs' Complaint and motion to dismiss briefing. Academy's argument that it actually did not agree to the Plaintiffs filing a new complaint is contradicted by its signed motion asking the Court to allow a new complaint, Judge Barlow says. Academy's argument that the Court did not grant the Plaintiffs leave to file the amended complaint is also contradicted by the record. The Court's order states that the Plaintiffs "shall file the First Amended [Complaint]" without mentioning any further requirements. Their argument that the Stern Plaintiffs had to file an additional motion, after submitting the stipulated motion, does not establish that the Court should deny the motion to consolidate, Judge Barlow points out. Academy relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., for the proposition that the court "no longer presides" over this case. Academy's argument that the Court does not preside over the case and has no "charge over it" is procedurally inaccurate, Judge Barlow opines. Academy offers no other argument against consolidation; accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate. Pursuant to Rule 42, the Court consolidates the two related actions into the lowest-numbered pending case, Case No. 2:24-cv-00015 (the "Consolidated Action"). No further filings will be made in Bates v. Academy Mortg. Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00192. The Clerk of Court will administratively close this case. All pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance until the filing of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"), which must be filed within fourteen days of this Order. The pending motion to dismiss in Stern v. Academy Mortgage Corporation is denied as moot. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss 30 days after the filing of the Consolidated Complaint. All papers previously filed and served to date in the related actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4tvfeft7 from PacerMonitor.com. ACTIVCARE LIVING: Faces Young Wage-and-Hour Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- TASHAUNA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTIVCARE LIVING INC., a California Corporation dba BRITTANY HOUSE MEMORY CARE AND ASSISTED LIVING; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 25LBCV01350 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California Public Policy including failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay all overtime owed, failure to reimburse work-related expenses, wage statement penalties, and retaliation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from March 13, 2023 to August 26, 2023. ActivCare Living Inc., doing business as Brittany House Memory Care and Assisted Living, is a full-service healthcare company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com dan@frontierlawcenter.com AJP ENTERPRISES: W.D. Washington Still Stays Houston Casualty Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, issued a Minute Order maintaining the stay in the lawsuit titled HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation, Plaintiff v. AJP ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; NHG ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; FNS FOOD SERVICE GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and JACOB ATKINSON, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01153-RAJ (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiff Houston Casualty Company ("HCC") brings a complaint for declaratory relief against AJP Enterprises, LLC, NHG Enterprises, LLC, and FNS Food Service Group, LLC (collectively, the "Insureds"), and Jacob Atkinson. Plaintiff HCC is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Texas. AJP is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. NHG is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. FNS is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Washington. In this action, HCC seeks a declaratory judgment concerning its rights and obligations under an Employment Practices Liability insurance policy in connection with two putative class actions brought against the Insureds captioned Jacob Atkinson v. AJP Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. 23-2-10311-4 KNT (King County Super. Ct.) (the "Wage Disclosure Action") and Jacob Atkinson v. AJP Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. 23-2-10313-1 KNT (King County Super. Ct.) (the "Salary History Action"). The class actions allege violations of RCW 49.58.110, which requires employers to disclose the salary range for posted job openings, and RCW 49.58.100, which prohibits employers from requesting salary history from job applicants. HCC contends that violations of these statutes do not fall within the coverage afforded under the Policy's Insuring Agreement, and that the $5,000 per employee statutory damages potentially available for violation of those provisions do not fall within the Policy's definition of Loss, while the Defendants contend otherwise. HCC issued Employment Practices Liability Policy No. H722-933094 to AJP Enterprises, LLC, NHG Enterprises, LLC, FNS Food Service Group, LLC, and JAP Holdings, LLC, for the Oct. 1, 2022, to Oct. 1, 2023 Policy Period (the "Policy"). By letter dated July 18, 2023, HCC agreed to pay Defense Costs on behalf of the Insureds in the Wage Disclosure Action, subject to a reservation of rights, pursuant to the Wage and Hour Defense Sublimit. However, HCC advised that the Policy Insuring Agreement was not triggered because the Complaint does not allege an Employment Practices Wrongful Act, and that, therefore, HCC had no duty to indemnify the Insureds for any judgment in the Wage Disclosure Action or pay Defense Costs once the Wage and Hour Defense Sublimit was exhausted. HCC agreed to pay Defense Costs on behalf of the Insureds in the Salary History Action, subject to a reservation of rights, pursuant to the Wage and Hour Defense Sublimit. However, HCC advised that by operation of the Policy's terms, HCC had no duty to indemnify the Insureds for any judgment in the Salary History Action or pay Defense Costs once the Wage and Hour Defense Sublimit was exhausted. After considering the parties' Status Report, the Court maintains the stay in the action pending confirmation that the Class Action settlements have been finally approved and those actions dismissed. If those actions are dismissed pursuant to the settlement, Judge Jones directs the parties to file a dismissal of this action, with all parties to bear their own costs. If the Class Action settlements are not consummated for any reason, the parties will immediately apprise the Court and request that the stay be lifted in this action. A full-text copy of the Court's Minute Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ru39zbwy from PacerMonitor.com. ALDERFER FAMILY: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Suit for $287,500 -------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Alderfer Family Farm and Alderfer Poultry Farm agreed to a $287,500 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims their eggs were falsely advertised as coming from free-roaming hens. The Alderfer eggs class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased non-organic eggs from Alderfer Poultry Farm since Dec. 1, 2020. Alderfer Family Farm is an egg farm in Pennsylvania that sells eggs from its own farm and other local farms. The company sells its eggs to grocery stores and other retailers. According to the class action lawsuit, Alderfer Family Farm falsely advertised its eggs as coming from free-roaming hens. In reality, the farm allegedly kept its hens in cages. Plaintiffs in the case say they would not have purchased Alderfer eggs or paid a premium price if they knew the truth about how the hens were kept. The plaintiffs say they were financially harmed by Alderfer's false advertising. This settlement follows similar lawsuits against major egg brands, such as Nellie's Free Range Eggs in 2021, Kroger in 2023 and Eggland's Best in 2024, all accused of misleading consumers about the living conditions of their hens with labels like "free range," "cage-free" and "farm fresh." Alderfer has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $287,500 class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Alderfer egg settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of egg cartons they purchased. Without proof of purchase, class members can claim up to two cartons. With proof of purchase, class members can claim an unlimited number of cartons. Class members are eligible for payments of $2 per carton, though this amount may be increased to $3 per carton depending on the number of claims filed. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 3, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Alderfer eggs class action settlement is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 22, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased Alderfer non-organic eggs for personal or household use between Dec. 1, 2020, and the date of the court's final settlement approval order. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Proof of purchase is not required for class members to submit a claim, but those who do not provide proof will be limited to two cartons of eggs. Acceptable proof includes store receipts, invoices, shipping documents, order confirmations or other documents that show the class member purchased non-organic eggs from Alderfer Poultry Farm during the class period. 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 09/22/2025 Case Name Spindel v. Alderfer Family Farm LLC, et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-10710, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Final Hearing 10/22/2025 Settlement Website AlderferSettlement.com Claims Administrator Alderfer Egg Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92779 info@AlderferSettlement.com (833) 296-0891 Class Counsel Kim E. Richman RICHMAN LAW & POLICY Defense Counsel Rebecca E. Bazan DUANE MORRIS LLP [GN] ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Dismissed With Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- Aldeyra Therapeutics, 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has dismissed with prejudice a putative class action lawsuit in March. On July 31, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit (the Securities Class Action) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against the Company and certain current and former officers, captioned Juliana Paice v. Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 23-cv-11737). On January 2, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The lawsuit alleged violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose certain information concerning (i) the NDA for and the prospects of ADX‑2191 for the treatment of primary vitreoretinal lymphoma and (ii) the NDA for and the prospects of reproxalap for the treatment of dry eye disease. The lawsuit sought, among other things, compensatory damages on behalf of herself and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 7, 2021, and October 16, 2023, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On March 14, 2025, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the entire case with prejudice. ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: $1.7MM Settlement in Cevasco Suit Has Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued a Final Approval Order and Final Judgment approving the parties' $1.7 million settlement in the lawsuit styled ROBERT CEVASCO, JACK JONES, PATRICK JACKSON, and PAUL RADVANSKY, on behalf of the Allegiant 401(k) Retirement Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01741-JAD-DJA (D. Nev.). The action came on for a final fairness hearing, held on May 9, 2025, on a proposed Settlement of this class action, preliminarily certified for settlement purposes, and the issues having been duly heard and a decision having been duly rendered. To the extent not otherwise defined here, Judge Dorsey says all terms will have the same meaning as used in the Class Action Settlement Agreement executed on Aug. 23, 2024. The Court approves and confirms the Settlement embodied in the Settlement Agreement as being a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement and compromise of this Action, adopts the Settlement Agreement as its Judgment, and orders that the Settlement Agreement will be effective, binding, and enforced according to its terms and conditions. The Court determines that Plaintiffs Robert Cevasco, Jack Jones, Patrick Jackson, and Paul Radvansky have asserted claims for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) with respect to the Allegiant 401(k) Retirement Plan against Allegiant Travel Company. The Court determines that the Settlement Agreement, which requires the payment of $1,700,000 on behalf of the Defendant, has been negotiated vigorously and at arm's length by Class Counsel and further finds that, at all times, the Plaintiffs have acted independently and that their interests are identical to the interests of the Plan and the Settlement Class. The Court further finds that the Settlement Agreement arises from a genuine controversy between the parties and is not the result of collusion, nor was the Settlement procured by fraud or misrepresentation. The Court approves the maintenance of the Action as a non-opt-out class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) with the Settlement Class being defined as: "All persons who were participants or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time during the Class Period." The "Class Period" is Oct. 17, 2016, through Jan. 6, 2025. A person was a participant in or beneficiary of the Plans during the Class Period if they had an account balance in the Plan during such period. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court confirms its prior appointment of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., McKay Law, LLC, and Edelson Lechtzin LLP as Class Counsel, and Kind Law as the Plaintiffs' Local Counsel. As of the date of Settlement Effective Date and payment of the Gross Settlement Amount, the Plaintiffs, the Plan, and each Member of the Settlement Class on their own behalf and on behalf of their present or former agents, employees, attorneys, accountants, representatives, advisers, investment bankers, trustees, parents, heirs, estates, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, will be deemed to have released each and all of the Releasees from the Released Claims. All members of the Settlement Class and the Plan are barred and enjoined from the institution and prosecution, either directly or indirectly, of any other actions in any court asserting any and all Released Claims against any and all Releasees. The litigation expenses incurred by Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs' Local Counsel in the course of prosecuting this action are reasonable. Accordingly, Class Counsel is awarded costs in the amount of $20,389.49, to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount. The Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the common fund established in this Action, specifically $566,666. Plaintiff Robert Cevasco is awarded a Case Contribution Award in the amount of $7,500. Plaintiffs Jack Jones, Patrick Jackson, and Paul Radvansky are awarded Case Contributions in the amount of $2,500 each. Class Counsel's fees and the Plaintiffs' Case Contribution Awards will be paid pursuant to the timing requirements described in the Settlement Agreement. The Plan of Allocation for the Settlement is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Any modification or change in the Plan of Allocation that may hereafter be approved will in no way disturb or affect this Judgment and will be considered separate from this Judgment. Without affecting the finality of this judgment, the Court retains jurisdiction for purposes of implementing the Settlement Agreement and reserves the power to enter additional orders to effectuate the fair and orderly administration and consummation of the Settlement, as may from time to time be appropriate, and resolution of any and all disputes arising thereunder. The Court further ordered that this case is dismissed, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mnurf627 from PacerMonitor.com. AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a California Labor Code class suit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. On April 15, 2024, a former employee initiated an employment litigation against Amphastar and IMS by filing a complaint, as amended, having individual and class action claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to California's Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, wage and hour, and other state laws. This complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. In the complaint, the plaintiff is seeking damages and related remedies under California Law, as well as various penalty payments under the California Labor Code. In November 2024, the court ordered the plaintiff to dismiss the individual and class claims, with only the PAGA claim remaining. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the complaint. Based in Rancho Cucamonga, California, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. manufactures injectable and inhaled drugs and drug delivery systems. The Company also offers contractual manufacturing services, including labeling and packaging, cold storage, and aseptic filling. AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Class Cert Opposition Due Nov. 18 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-01545 (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered a memo endorsing joint Rule 26(f) report and discovery plan: -- Parties to substantially complete Aug. 29, 2025 Document productions: -- Class certification motion Sept. 18, 2025 (including expert reports, if any) -- Parties to complete document Oct. 30, 2025 Productions: -- Class certification opposition: Nov. 18, 2025 -- Produce privilege and redactions Nov. 21, 2025 Logs: -- Class cert reply: Jan. 22, 2026 -- Fact Discovery Cutoff: June 25, 2026 -- Identification of Experts: July 17, 2026 A copy of the Court's memo dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=22M8gm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Robert D. Gerson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com rgerson@rgrdlaw.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: Jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and – Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0380 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com - and – Kim E. Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 250 Park Avenue, Suite 2040 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 696-3730 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Farina, Esq. Amanda M. MacDonald, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 E-mail: sfarina@wc.com amacdonald@wc.com - and – Timothy E. Hoeffner, Esq. Jason D. Gerstein, Esq. Ludwig Von Rigal, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017-3852 Telephone: (212) 547-5444 E-mail: thoeffner@mwe.com jgerstein@mwe.com lvonrigal@mwe.com - and – Gregg L. Weiner, Esq. Christopher Thomas Brown, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-8704 Telephone: (212) 596-9000 E-mail: gregg.weiner@ropesgray.com thomas.brown@ropesgray.com ANGEION GROUP: Faces Suit Over Class Action Payouts Conspiracy -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Kauflin of Forbes reports that prominent attorney David Boies and his firm Boies Schiller Flexner filed three lawsuits this week alleging that at least five companies handling payouts for class action settlements conspired to secretly pocket bank interest payments and award each other business outside the view of attorneys and judges. The suit says the scheme has resulted in lower class action payouts for consumers. The firm filed the suit against claims administration companies Angeion, Epiq and JND Legal Administration, three firms that were also the subject of a recent lawsuit accusing them of taking secret payments from fintech companies. The Boies suit also named Huntington and Western Alliance, the two leading custodial banks for class action lawsuits, as defendants. Boies filed the case in three different federal courts: the Northern District of California, the Southern District of New York and the Southern District of Florida. The charges are numerous and include allegations of conspiracy, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and unfair competition. (The multiple filings, with different plaintiffs, may be an attempt to position the Boies firm to be the lead counsel in any multidistrict class action that is certified.) The allegations are part of a troubling pattern in class action payouts that Forbes reported on last week in an in-depth article about the companies quietly pocketing class action payouts. In statements to Forbes, representatives from Angeion and JND denied the allegations of the new suit, calling them "baseless." A spokesperson for Western Alliance called them "false" and "full of inaccuracies." Huntington declined to comment, and Epiq didn't respond to our request for comment. Here's how the money in class action payouts moves: When a lawsuit is settled, a judge appoints a claims administration company to handle the distribution of funds to consumers. The administrators also choose a bank to house the money before it's distributed. These deposits can total hundreds of millions of dollars in a large case, and since it can take months or years for the money to be paid out, the funds can earn millions of dollars in interest while sitting idle. Most settlement agreements dictate that any interest earned on the settlement funds should go to the consumers harmed by the company being sued, but the new Boies suit alleges that claims administrators, instead of giving all the interest to the class members, "demanded that they be given a cut of the profits." If the banks said no, the administrators threatened to take the lucrative deposits elsewhere. "The Administrator Defendants agreed with each other that they would implement such a scheme, and each of them proceeded to act accordingly, in concert with one another," the suit says. The filed complaint gives examples of eight class action suits, including the $119 million Capital One data breach and the $117 million Yahoo! data breach, where the interest rate paid to class members was less than 0.5% despite market rates then being between 4% and 6%. The suit says that, according to former employees at Huntington and Western Alliance, the banks paid to claims administrators "at minimum, the difference between the market rate on an interest bearing account and the interest that the Bank Defendants paid to the class members." The banks would "deposit the kickbacks into [special purpose entities] separately created by the Administrator Defendants to hide the scheme." None of these payments were ever reported to a judge, the suit says, despite the fact that claims administrators are required to submit a proposal outlining all of their services and costs and get them approved by a judge before a payout begins. One topic the Boies lawsuit doesn't address is the rebates that fintech companies have paid to settlement administrators in exchange for hiring them to distribute class action payouts through digital prepaid cards, which Forbes covered in our reporting last week. Boies Schiller Flexner declined to comment. [GN] ANGEL ADAN: Request to Hold in Abeyance Bid To Certify Class Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Torres-Delgado v. Angel Luis Adan, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01054 (D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge Maria Antongiorgi-Jordan entered an order denying motion requesting court to hold in abeyance motion to certify class. The Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion was originally due on Feb. 14, 2025. The Court previously extended this deadline to May 23, 2025, in its discretion. The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC] APPLE INC: Starts to Accept Claims for Privacy Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Kika, writing for CNET, reports that accidentally turning on Siri is probably one of the more annoying parts of owning Apple products -- at least, if you're me it is -- but you know what might definitely make up for that? Getting paid for it. Years after it was initially sued for allegedly having voice assistant Siri listen in on conversations, Apple at the start of 2025 chose to settle the class-action suit to the tune of $95 million. Now, some of that money could be yours as a claims website has been launched. Here's everything you'll need to know. The settlement period covers a full decade and given the ubiquity of Apple products, there's a good chance you'll be eligible for a piece of the payout. If you meet the eligibility standards, you can claim a payment for up to five Siri-enabled devices, with a cap on how much you can receive per device. We'll get into the specific amount a little bit later. The impact of this settlement has the potential to be wide-ranging, given the reach of Apple's product ecosystem. According to a Business of Apps report from November, citing company and market research data, there were roughly 155 million active iPhones in the US as of 2024, a number that's been steadily increasing since the product's debut. Similarly, active Apple TV streaming boxes in the US have also been increasing year to year, with more than 32 million active in the US as of 2023. To find out if you're eligible for this settlement, read on. For more, find out what's up with the recent delay of T-Mobile data breach settlement checks. Who sued Apple and why? This class action lawsuit, Lopez et al v. Apple Inc., was first brought against Apple in 2019, with plaintiffs alleging that they were routinely recorded by their Apple devices after unintentionally activating the Siri virtual assistant, violating their privacy in the process. They further alleged that these recordings were then sold to advertisers and used to target them with ads online. Specific incidents mentioned in the suit include plaintiffs seeing ads online for brands like Air Jordan and Olive Garden after Apple device users discussed them out loud. In some instances, plaintiffs claimed that their devices began listening to them without them having said anything at all. At least one plaintiff involved in the case was a minor when it was first filed. Though it agreed to the settlement, Apple hasn't admitted any wrongdoing. "Siri has been engineered to protect user privacy from the beginning," Apple said in a statement sent to CNET. "Siri data has never been used to build marketing profiles and it has never been sold to anyone for any purpose. Apple settled this case to avoid additional litigation so we can move forward from concerns about third-party grading that we already addressed in 2019. We use Siri data to improve Siri and we are constantly developing technologies to make Siri even more private." Who is eligible for this class action settlement? The eligibility requirements for this settlement are fairly broad, as it's open to anyone who owned a Siri-enabled Apple device between Sept. 17, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2024. In order to opt in, you'll have to swear under oath that at some point during that period, you accidentally activated Siri on each device you want to get a payment for, and that these activations occurred during a conversation meant to be private. Siri-enabled devices include iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, MacBooks, iMacs, Apple TV streaming boxes, HomePod speakers and iPod Touches. How can I opt in to this Apple settlement? As of Thursday, May 24, a website has been launched where Apple customers can claim a portion of the settlement, if they believe they qualify. If you're looking to submit a claim, you have until July 2, 2025, to do so. It's not clear at this time when payments will be disbursed to approved claimants but it will surely be sometime after Aug. 1, 2025, when a final approval hearing is scheduled. How much can I get from the class action settlement? Payments per device are to be capped at $20, although depending on how many people opt in to the settlement, claimants could receive less than that. Each individual can only claim payments for up to five devices, meaning the maximum possible payment you could receive from the settlement is $100. [GN] APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Therapeutics, 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 suit pending with the Southern District of New York. On December 17, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain current and former Company officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alexandru v. Applied Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-09715). The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements between January 3, 2024 to December 2, 2024 in connection with the Company's NDA to the FDA for govorestat for the treatment of Classic Galactosemia, and seeks unspecified damages. On December 27, 2024, another purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and a former Company officer and director in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Ikram v. Applied Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-09973). The complaint alleges claims substantially similar to those alleged in the Alexandru action and also seeks unspecified damages. On February 18, 2025, several purported stockholders filed motions seeking to consolidate the Alexandru and Ikram actions and seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action. On March 11, 2025, the court consolidated the Alexandru and Ikram actions (In re Applied Therapeutics Securities Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-9715) and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On May 2, 2025, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The deadline to respond to the consolidated amended complaint was May 23, 2025. APRIA HEALTHCARE: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Tisdale Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the lawsuit entitled Angela Tisdale, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apria Healthcare LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-09620-AH-PVC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code. On Feb. 11, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Anne Hwang denied on Apr. 24, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Tisdale, et al. v. Apria Healthcare LLC, Case No. 25-3387, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 28, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 2, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 7, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ANGELA TISDALE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel Jay Palay, Esq. PALAY LAW FIRM 121 N. Fir Street, Suite F Ventura, CA 93001 Defendant-Appellant APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC is represented by: Nathan Austin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 - and - Dylan Bradley Carp, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 ARAMARK CAMPUS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 27, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA DALE on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:24-cv-04856-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend time and continue dates: -- Last day to complete Private ADR: Dec. 31, 2025 -- Last day to file Motion for Class Jan. 27, 2026 Certification: -- Deadline to file Opposition: March 3, 2026 -- Deadline for Reply: March 17, 2026 -- Hearing on Motion for Class April 7, 2026 Certification: Aramark provides food services and facilities management to hospitals, universities, school districts, stadiums, and other businesses around the world. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bd2V7v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. Mitchell J. Murray, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com mitchell@jameshawkinsaplc.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. Thomas A Duda, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com thomas.duda@morganlewis.com ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Deal in Cybersecurity Suit Awaits OK --------------------------------------------------------- Ashford Hospitality Trust, 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 tentative settlement in the class action lawsuit arising from the cybersecurity incident last 2023 is awaiting court approval. "During the quarter ended September 30, 2023, we had a cyber incident that resulted in the potential exposure of certain personal information. We have completed an investigation and have identified certain information that may have been exposed and notified potentially impacted individuals pursuant to applicable state guidelines. All systems have been restored, the Company further disclosed. In February of 2024, two class action lawsuits were filed, one in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and a second in the 68th District Court for Dallas County related to the cyber incident. The lawsuit filed in the 68th District Court was subsequently dismissed and refiled in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On March 12, 2024, the court ordered the two cases be consolidated. The consolidated case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The parties have reached an agreement, subject to final Court approval, to resolve the class action suit. The amount of the class settlement is approximately $485,000. Ashford Inc. expects the entire settlement amount to be reimbursed through insurance coverage. The hearing for final Court approval of the settlement is scheduled for August 27, 2025. ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Proposed Deal in Calif. Labor Suit Awaits OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashford Hospitality Trust, 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 tentative settlement in the class action lawsuit alleging violations of certain California employment laws is awaiting court approval. On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which class action affects nine hotels owned by subsidiaries of the Company. The court has entered an order granting class certification with respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of our manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of our manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of non-exempt former employees of our manager who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2, 2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the class; however, the total number of employees in the class has not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing discovery. The opt-out period has been extended until such time that discovery has concluded. In May 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the parties to determine whether the case should be maintained, dismissed, or the class de-certified. After submission of the briefs, the court requested that the parties submit stipulations for the court to rule upon. On February 13, 2024, the judge ordered the parties to submit additional briefing related to on-site breaks. A tentative settlement has been reached subject to the respective parties obtaining various approvals. As of March 31, 2025, the estimated settlement liability amount has been accrued. ATLANTIC INT'L: Awaiting OK of Settlement in "Briseno" ------------------------------------------------------ Atlantic International Corp. 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 approval of the settlement in the wage and hour class suit filed by Enrique Briseno as class representative. On January 6, 2021, a class action wage and hour complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, by Enrique Briseno as class representative. The Complaint was filed only against the Company's client. The matter settled for $425,000, $300,000 of which is to be paid by the Company, and the remaining $125,000 is to be paid by the client. The settlement agreement was signed on December 17, 2024 and has been finalized and executed and provided to the Court for approval. The Company is currently awaiting such approval. If approved, it is anticipated that the settlement payment will be due in the second quarter of 2025. The Company has accrued the full amount of the $300,000 settlement payment due, which is recognized in "accrued expenses and other current liabilities" on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. ATLANTIC INT'L: Awaiting OK of Settlement in "Reyes" ---------------------------------------------------- Atlantic International Corp. 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 approval of the settlement in the wage and hour class suit filed by Mirna Reyes and Teresa Alvarez as class representatives On October 8, 2021, a class action wage and hour complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, by Mirna Reyes and Teresa Alvarez as class representatives. The Complaint was filed against the Company as well as the Company's client. The matter settled for $750,000, $650,000 of which is to be paid by the Company, and the remaining $100,000 is to be paid by the client. The settlement agreement was signed November 16, 2023 and has been finalized and executed and provided to the Court for approval. The Company is currently awaiting such approval. If approved, it is anticipated that the settlement payment will be due in the fourth quarter of 2025. The Company has accrued the full amount of the $650,000 settlement payment due, which is recognized in "accrued expenses and other current liabilities" on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. AVANTEUSA LP: McKee Sues Over Consumer Credit Violation in W.D.N.C. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AvanteUSA, LP. The case is captioned as KATHLEEN MCKEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AVANTEUSA, LP, Case No. 5:25-cv-00068-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C., April 29, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. AvanteUSA, LP is an account receivable management firm, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com - and - C. Randolph Emory, Esq. THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C. 11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102 Charlotte, NC 28262 Telephone: (704) 371-4333 Facsimile: (704) 371-3015 Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Bid More Time to File Class Response OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. et al (re Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation), Case No. 1:22-cv-03925-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order granting the Defendants' request for a 30-day extension of their deadline to file their Answer. The Order extended all class-certification deadlines by 60 days, but did not extend any deadlines not related to class certification (including Defendants' answer deadlines and both parties' discovery deadlines). The Defendants shall file their Answer by June 30, 2025. The parties' request for a 30-day extension of their deadlines to respond to pending written discovery is granted. The parties shall respond to pending written discovery by July 9, 2025. Axsome is a biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapies for central nervous system conditions that have limited treatment options. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UaivFV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Grunfeld, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Brandon Cordovi, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com bcordovi@pomlaw.com - and - Jacob Goldberg, Esq. Erica Stone, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com estone@rosenlegal.com - and - Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq. PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C. 97-45 Queens Boulevard, Suite 1202 Rego Park, NY 11374 Telephone: (212) 685-0969 E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael L. Kichline, Esq. Emily E. Renshaw, Esq. Matthew C. McDonough, Esq. Michael A. Hacker, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 E-mail: michael.kichline@morganlewis.com emily.renshaw@morganlewis.com matthew.mcdonough@morganlewis.com michael.hacker@morganlewis.com AXT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------- AXT, Inc., continues to defend itself against the putative securities suit pending before the Eastern District of New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 6, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or acquired our publicly traded securities, against us, Morris S. Young, our Chief Executive Officer, and Gary L. Fischer, our Chief Financial Officer. The court transferred the case to the Northern District of California, where our headquarters are located. A lead plaintiff has been appointed and an amended complaint was filed. The amended complaint asserts a putative class period from March 24, 2021 and April 3, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The amended complaint alleges 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 by the defendants, and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. Defendants' motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending before the Court. On August 22, 2024, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California by an alleged shareholder against Morris S. Young, our Chief Executive Officer, Gary L. Fischer, our Chief Financial Officer, current directors David C. Chang, Jesse Chen, and Christine Russell, and former director Leonard J. LeBlanc, with the Company named as a nominal defendant (together, "Defendants"). Defendants moved to dismiss on November 6, 2024, following which the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 20, 2024. The amended complaint asserts that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company based on the allegations asserted in the original complaint in the putative shareholder class action. On November 27, 2024, Defendants again moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending before the Court. On March 17, 2025, the Court granted our motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff did not make a pre-suit demand on our Board of Directors and failed to plead with particularity facts sufficient to excuse the lack of a demand and also for failure to state a claim. On April 11, 2025, the plaintiff filed a notice that he did not intend to further amend his complaint. The Court entered judgment on April 14, 2025. On May 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the final outcome of the putative shareholder class action or to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to that litigation. We believe these claims to be meritless and intend to vigorously defend against them. BATTERIES PLUS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 26, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR RIVERA, v. BATTERIES PLUS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00290-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order as follows: Interim Settlement Report: Jan. 29, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: Feb. 26, 2026 Dispositive Motions: Forty-five (45) days after the Court rules on the motion for class certification Batteries operates as an online electronic store. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m1r6az at no extra charge.[CC] BEIERSDORF INC: Eucerin Lotions Contain Synthetic Moisturizers -------------------------------------------------------------- A new class action lawsuit alleges that Beiersdorf Inc. falsely advertises that its Eucerin lotions contain "natural moisturizing factors" when they actually contain synthetic moisturizers. Plaintiff Christine Slowinski claims Beiersdorf violated Illinois consumer protection law by labeling its Intensive Repair and Advanced Repair lotions as being made with natural moisturizers, even though they contain lactic acid, glycine and other moisturizers manufactured in a laboratory. Reasonable consumers understand the term "natural" to mean "found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people," Slowinski argues in the Eucerin lotion class action lawsuit. She claims Beiersdorf has been able to charge premium prices for the Eucerin lotions as a result of the allegedly false advertising. Slowinski wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the Eucerin lotions. She claims she would not have been able to identify the synthetic moisturizers in the lotions without "advanced chemical knowledge and investigation." Eucerin class action allegations detail synthetic moisturizing ingredients Slowinski claims she purchased a Eucerin lotion at a Target store in Schaumburg, Illinois, in 2024, relying on the label's claim that it contained "natural moisturizing factors". She says she did not know the product contained synthetic moisturizers when she bought it. The lawsuit claims Beiersdorf uses manufactured, artificial lactic acid in its products by feeding a carbohydrate feedstock, such as glucose, to genetically engineered bacteria and collecting, refining and purifying the bacteria's metabolic excretion. The plaintiff further argues that Eucerin's Advanced Repair lotions and creams contain sodium PCA, created through a two-step chemical process, and arginine HCL, which is formed through a chemical reaction involving hydrochloric acid. According to Slowinski, the Intensive Repair lotion also includes ozokerite, which is either heavily refined from naturally mined materials or chemically synthesized from petroleum-based sources. She argues that Beiersdorf's allegedly false advertising impaired her ability to choose the quality and products she decided to buy. Meanwhile, several beauty companies, including Mielle Organics, Dr. Squatch and Charlotte Tilbury, are facing class action lawsuits over allegations of misleading advertising, product safety concerns and privacy violations affecting U.S. consumers. Slowinski is represented by Todd Friedman and Steve Perry of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C. The Eucerin lotion class action lawsuit is Slowinski v. Beiersdorf Inc., Case No. 2025-CH-04963, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. [GN] BLUEBIRD BIO: Continues to Defend "Gill" Suit in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- bluebird bio, 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 suit captioned Garry Gill v. bluebird bio, Inc. et al., in Massachusetts. "On March 28, 2024, a class action lawsuit captioned Garry Gill v. bluebird bio, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-10803-PBS (the "Gill Action"), was filed against us in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. An amended complaint was filed on August 15, 2024. The amended complaint purports to assert claims against us and certain of our current and former officers pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's shares between April 24, 2023 and December 8, 2023 (the "class period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by purported misstatements and omissions regarding (i) whether the Company could obtain FDA approval for the lovo-cel BLA without a black box warning for hematologic malignancies; and (ii) whether the Company would be granted a priority review voucher by the FDA in connection with the BLA, which it could sell in order to strengthen its financial position. "The amended complaint claims these alleged statements and omissions operated to artificially inflate the price paid for our common stock during the class period. "On September 2, 2024, the Court entered the parties' stipulated schedule for briefing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Our opening brief in support of a motion to dismiss was filed on October 11, 2024; Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 5, 2024; and we filed our reply brief on December 20, 2024. "The Court held oral argument on our motion to dismiss on January 14, 2025 and took our motion under advisement. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims in this action," the Company stated. BOOKING.COM: Hotels in Europe Sue Over Overpaid Commissions ----------------------------------------------------------- PhocusWire reports that hotels across Europe are being encouraged to join a class action against Booking.com to reclaim potentially billions of euros in overpaid commissions. The action is being launched in the Netherlands, where Booking.com has its head office, and is being co-ordinated through a Dutch foundation called the Stichting Hotel Claim Alliance. It is being pursued by a pan-European team of lawyers and economists with experience in the field of competition damage claims, including Volker Soyez, a partner in Brussels-based legal firm Schneider Geiwitz & Partner (SGP). The action is being launched following a judgement by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in September 2024 in the a long-running case between Booking.com and 63 individual German hotels and groups, including 25hours, Dorint and Steigenberger. The case revolves around the legality of so-called parity clauses in the agreements between the online travel agency (OTA) and hoteliers. When Booking.com entered the German market in 2006, it included what is known as a "wide parity" clause in its terms and conditions for hoteliers, which prohibited them from offering rates lower than those offered on Booking.com through their own sales channels or other OTAs. In a 2013 case involving HRS, Germany's Federal Cartel Office ruled that wide parity clauses were contrary to German and European Union laws on cartels. In 2015, Booking.com replaced the wide parity clause with a "narrow parity" clause, which prohibited hotels from offering lower rates on their own channels. The Federal Cartel Office subsequently ruled this was also against German and EU competition law. The latest class action is being supported by the European hospitality association Hotrec, which alleged that the ECJ "found that the platform's parity clauses breached EU competition law." "European hoteliers have long endured unfair conditions and inflated costs. Now is the time to stand together and seek redress. This collective action sends a strong message: Abusive practices in the digital marketplace will not go unchallenged," Hotrec president Alexandros Vassilikos said in a release. In an email to PhocusWire, a Booking.com spokesperson called Hotrec's statements "incorrect and misleading." "The ECJ judgement did not conclude that Booking.com's price parity clauses were anti-competitive or that they influenced competition (and this can be clearly seen in paragraph 92 of their ruling). So, this ruling does not open the door to damage claims, and we will continue to show that parity clauses do not have an anti-competitive effect in court if needed," the spokesperson said. Taking action SGP's Soyez said the September 2024 judgement brought the situation into sharper focus. "When the ECJ rendered its judgment, people across our hotel, across Europe became aware that this is not just a German issue but something that affects all hotels in Europe," Soyez said. He added that hoteliers were keen to do something but feared retaliation if they went on their own. "There are larger hotels chains [that] would have been willing to fund this case on their own, but the smaller hotels do not have funds for that. After having talked to a large number of hotels of different sizes, the decision was [made] to have a funder in place who would cover all the costs and cost risks," said Soyez. Soyez said the total sum involved in the action could amount to billions of euros in overpaid commission. "It depends on the number of hotels that participate, but in the German case, we have approximately 2,000 hotels participating and the claims value is €750 million, without interest," he said. Hotels and groups wanting to participate in the action have until July 31 to join the claim. They will need the details of how they are incorporated and the invoices they have received from Booking.com. And the action is not just limited to hotels in the EU. "Hotels from the European Economic Area, including Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein, but also the United Kingdom and Switzerland are welcome to join," said Soyez. The company made revenues of $23.7 billion in 2024, an increase of 29.3% from 2023. In its Q4 2024 financial statement, Booking.com said, "The company is involved in investigations related to whether Booking.com's contractual parity arrangements with accommodation providers are anticompetitive because they require partners to provide Booking.com with rates, conditions and availability at least as favorable as those offered to other [OTAs] or by the partner itself." "To resolve certain of the parity-related investigations, the company has from time to time made commitments regarding future business practices or activities, such as agreeing to narrow the scope of its parity clauses. Some of these investigations have resulted in fines and the company could incur additional fines and/or be restricted in certain of its business practices in the future." Old news? Pedro Colaço, CEO of GuestCentric, said this case feels like a "blast from the past." "If you go back 20 years, people were complaining that they thought that these behaviors were truly anti-competitive," he said. "Hotels have moved on from this," said Colaço. "They said OK, I need to focus on a healthy distribution mix. I need to make sure that I have good direct strategy, a good tech stack, I need to make sure that my pricing is correct, that I can leverage the new Google tools and so on." "This could be millions in damages or just millions in distractions, which looks, in my opinion, more likely," he said. The question is how Booking.com will react to the action and whether it will aim to claw back any negotiated damages. Colaço said, "Booking.com is going to come up with listing fees and promotion fees and all sorts of stuff, and it's going to be even more opaque. The big guys have people that run spreadsheets and know exactly what they're spending. The small guys don't, and they are just going to think that Booking.com is very inexpensive and lean even more into the big OTAs and nothing will have been achieved." Soyez said, "Booking is in a difficult situation. It is a market dominant company with 70% market share, so whatever they do is very closely scrutinized by the regulators." Soyez does not expect for the action to extend to other OTAs in the market, such as Expedia. "The situation is different," he said. "Expedia has a market share of between 10 and 15%, which, from a competition law perspective, makes a decisive difference, and that's why we are not looking into expanding this case to other portals." Max Starkov, hospitality technologist and digital strategist, said the dominance of Booking.com in Europe is hoteliers' own doing. "These lawsuits are like suing the restaurant where you had a nice meal for charging you high prices," he said. "Instead of fixing [their] own direct distribution channel and investing in technology, marketing and talent, hoteliers have been embracing the lazy man's distribution game -- via the OTAs. And now they are complaining that OTA distribution is too expensive? Hoteliers knew the cost of OTA distribution the moment they signed up with the OTAs." Starkov believes European hoteliers -- 60% of which are independent -- are averse to technology. "They do not invest adequately, if at all, in technology, marketing and talent: Less than 10% of them have a CRM [customer relationship management system] and some kind of guest reward program in place, and less than 15% have revenue management systems in place. Websites? Last updated before the pandemic. SEO -- how do you spell that? AIO [artificial intelligence optimization] -- you are kidding, right?" He added, "No wonder Booking.com has gained such dominance in Europe." [GN] BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Affirms Exclusion of Testimony in Ruffin ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the exclusion of expert testimony in the lawsuit styled Floyd Ruffin, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP America Production Company, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 23-30854 (5th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, USDC Nos. 2:20-CV-334, 2:22-CV-1006. Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote the Opinion. The matter is before Circuit Judges Patrick E. Higginbotham, Leslie H. Southwick and Chief Judge Elrod. This toxic-tort case arising from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill presents the issue of what expert testimony must be introduced to establish causation. Plaintiff–Appellant Floyd Ruffin alleges that he was exposed to crude oil while employed as a clean-up worker after the spill. He was later diagnosed with prostate cancer and sued BP. The issue is whether the expert testimony that Ruffin submitted to prove that his alleged exposure caused his cancer was sufficiently "relevant" and "reliable" to be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). BP says it was not, arguing for a rule that would require an expert to testify to the specific quantitative amount or "dose" of chemical exposure that would cause the Plaintiff's injury. The Panel declines to adopt such a rule because it conflicts with its precedent. But because the Panel agrees with the district court that Ruffin's expert testimony, nevertheless, suffers from fatal analytical flaws, the Panel affirms the district court's exclusion of the testimony and its associated award of summary judgment to BP. Mr. Ruffin worked as a shoreline clean-up worker in Louisiana for five months following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Five years later, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Ruffin sued BP in the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to the Deepwater Horizon medical-benefits class action settlement as a "Back-End Litigation Option" (BELO) claim for alleged injuries that manifest after the date of the settlement. Ruffin claimed that he was exposed to harmful chemicals that caused his cancer while working on the clean-up effort. After discovery, Ruffin designated several experts. At issue here is Ruffin's causation expert, Dr. Benjamin Rybicki, who is a genetic and molecular epidemiologist. Rybicki reported that Ruffin was exposed to "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons" (PAHs)--chemical compounds that are "ubiquitous in the environment" and occur in coal, peat, crude oil, and shale oils--and that at least one of these compounds can cause prostate cancer. Rybicki pointed specifically to a compound called "benzo(a)pyrene," the "most prevalent PAH," and reported that it causes cancer in humans. Relying on animal studies and occupational studies, Rybicki concluded that occupational exposure to PAHs is associated with a "modest" 1.5- to 2-fold increase in one's risk of prostate cancer. BP filed a Daubert motion to exclude Rybicki's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. After a hearing, the district court granted the motion. The court explained that Rybicki's testimony was inadmissible because it neither "identif[ied] the harmful level of exposure to a chemical" necessary to cause prostate cancer nor proved that Ruffin was "exposed to" that harmful level. The court also concluded that there was an analytical gap between the data and the opinions proffered by Rybicki because his testimony suffered from several methodological flaws. With Ruffin's expert testimony excluded, the court determined that Ruffin lacked the evidence needed to satisfy the causation element of his claim and granted BP's motion for summary judgment. Ruffin timely appealed. Judge Elrod opines that Rybicki's testimony is not irrelevant on the basis that it fails to provide a quantitative exposure dosage of PAHs that would cause prostate cancer. Ruffin claims that exposure to PAHs caused his prostate cancer. Rybicki, in turn, reported that PAHs are capable of causing prostate cancer in humans. Though it declines to adopt BP's proposed quantitative-dose rule, the Panel nevertheless agrees that Ruffin has failed to establish general causation. Among other things, the Panel says Rybicki's assertion that PAHs can cause prostate cancer is not supported for a basic reason: it is not what Rybicki's own analysis shows. Importantly, the chemical at issue is the chemical that the Plaintiff was exposed to. Ruffin's complaint alleges that he was exposed to PAHs. However, while Rybicki purported to testify about PAHs, his testimony that PAHs cause prostate cancer was actually limited to only one kind of PAH, benzo(a)pyrene, which neither he nor Ruffin claim that Ruffin was exposed to. Without Rybicki's testimony, Judge Elrod points out, Ruffin cannot demonstrate general causation. Summary judgment is required when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court, thus, properly granted BP's motion for summary judgment. For these reasons, the Panel affirms the district court's exclusion of Rybicki's testimony and award of summary judgment to BP. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/22dcyr2x from GovInfo. BROADMARK REALTY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Longview News Journal reports that the law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that holders of Broadmark Realty Capital Inc. (NYSE: BRMK) common stock as of the record date of the May 2023 merger between Broadmark and Ready Capital Corporation (NYSE: RC) (the "Merger"), have until July 28, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Broadmark class action lawsuit. Captioned Grant v. Broadmark Realty Capital, No. 25-cv-01013 (W.D. Wash.), the Broadmark class action lawsuit charges Broadmark, Ready Capital, certain of Broadmark's and Ready Capital's top executives and directors, and Ready Capital's external asset manager with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Broadmark class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-broadmark-realty-capital-inc-class-action-lawsuit-brmk.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: Broadmark and Ready Capital are real estate investments trusts. On May 30, 2023, Broadmark shareholders voted to approve the merger of Broadmark and Ready Capital, which closed the next day. The Broadmark class action lawsuit alleges that the proxy statement used to solicit the support of Broadmark shareholders for the Merger contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) a material portion of borrowers within Ready Capital's originated portfolio were experiencing significant financial distress due to high interest rates that had increased their borrowing costs; (ii) an oversupply of multifamily properties in Ready Capital's markets of operation had severely limited the ability of Ready Capital borrowers to raise their rents by the amounts necessary to cover their growing debt costs; (iii) a major development project acquired in Ready Capital's acquisition of Mosaic Real Estate Credit, LLC, Mosaic Real Estate Credit TE, LLC, and MREC International Incentive Split, LP (a Ritz-Carlton located in Portland, Oregon), which accounted for approximately $500 million of Ready Capital's acquired loan portfolio, had experienced catastrophic setbacks since its inception, including significant cost overruns, construction delays, and funding shortfalls; (iv) as a result, Ready Capital's Current Expected Credit Loss reserves and expected credit losses were materially understated; and (v) consequently, Ready Capital's financial projections regarding Ready Capital's Distributable Earnings per share, dividends per share, and book value per share had no basis in fact when made. The price of Ready Capital stock has remained significantly below the Merger price as of the time the Broadmark class action lawsuit was filed. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who held Broadmark common stock as of the record date of the Merger to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Broadmark 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 Broadmark class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Broadmark class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Broadmark class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (800) 449-4900 Email: info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] C.A.T.5 COMMUNICATIONS: Tapp Sues Over Tower Technicians' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------- WALKER LANE TAPP and CHRISTIAN DELK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. C.A.T.5 COMMUNICATIONS, INC., EZRA CATALDO and SAMUEL CATALDO, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00028-CEA-CHS (M.D. Tenn., May 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as tower technicians. C.A.T.5 Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications provider, with its principal place of business in Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kerry E. Knox, Esq. 117 South Academy Street Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Telephone: (615) 896-1000 Email: kek@castelliknox.com - and - Stephen W. Grace, Esq. 1019 16th Avenue, South Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 255-5225 Email: sgrace@sgracelaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Bid to Produce Docs in Affiliate Marketing Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge William B. Porter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents in the lawsuit captioned IN RE: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, AFFILIATE MARKETING LITIGATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00023-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va.). Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Responses to Interrogatories, and Witnesses for 30(b)(6) Testimony from Defendants and the Defendants' Motion to Compel. After reviewing the Motions and hearing oral argument on May 9, 2025, the Court rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows. The Plaintiffs' Motion is granted as to Requests 4, 7, 10, 25, 29, and 32. The Plaintiffs' Motion is granted as to Topics 1, 16, 14, 22, and 26. The Plaintiffs' Motion is granted as to Request 5 and Topic 12, but the Defendants need not respond to these requests until after the district judge rules on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss"). The Plaintiffs' Motion is granted as to Request 8 and Topic 8, but the Defendants must only produce high-level reports or presentations. The Plaintiffs' Motion is denied as to Interrogatory 8 and Topic 21 until the district judge rules on the Motion to Dismiss. If the district judge denies the Motion to Dismiss, then the parties are ordered to meet and confer about Interrogatory 8 and Topic 21. The Plaintiffs' Motion is denied as to Topic 15, but the parties are directed to meet and confer on this issue. The Plaintiffs' Motion is denied in all other respects. The Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part. Judge Porter finds that the Original Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint are not subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 discovery. The Plaintiffs must provide responsive information to which they have access in response to the Defendants' Requests 8, 9, and 10; the Defendants' Common Interrogatories 8, 9, and 10; the Defendants' Individual Interrogatories 2 and 3 to Plaintiff Ahntourage Media LLC; the Defendants' Individual Interrogatories 3 and 4 to Plaintiffs Just Josh, Inc., Storm Productions LLC, TechSource Official, and ToastyBros, LLC; and the Defendants' Individual 30(b)(6) Topic 9 to all Plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4c7wy8z4 from PacerMonitor.com. CATHOLIC HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Alder of HIPAA Journal reports that a California company that provides an agentic AI-powered software solution for streamlining healthcare operations and improving operational efficiency has recently disclosed a major data breach involving the personal and protected health information of almost half a million patients of Catholic Health in Buffalo, New York. The HIPAA Journal reported on the breach on May 19, 2025, the same day six class action lawsuits were filed in federal court in California over the data breach. More lawsuits are expected to be filed in the coming days. The data breach was discovered on November 15, 2024, when an unsecured Elasticsearch database was identified that had been exposed online for more than 6 weeks between September 19, 2024, and November 5, 2024. The database contained the data of approximately 483,000 Catholic Health patients, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical/health information, treatment information, health insurance information, and email/usernames and accompanying passwords. The affected individuals started to be notified about the data breach on May 9, 2025. All of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and assert similar claims against the Santa Clara, California-headquartered company, including negligence for failing to implement reasonable and appropriate safeguards to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of sensitive data, a failure to comply with industry standard data security practices, and a failure to follow Federal Trade Commission cybersecurity guidelines. The lawsuits also take issue with the length of time it took to issue notification letters, which were not sent to the affected individuals until 6 months after the data breach was identified. The lawsuits claim that the delay in issuing notifications violates federal and state data breach notification laws. As is now common in breach notifications, only limited information about the data breach was disclosed. The lawsuits claim there were important omissions, such as how the breach occurred and the measures taken to ensure similar breaches are prevented in the future. The lawsuits contend that the lack of information in the breach notification letters has severely diminished the plaintiffs' and class members' ability to mitigate the harms from the data breach. In addition to negligence, the lawsuits assert claims of invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and a violation of California's unfair competition law. The lawsuits seek a jury trial, damages in excess of $5 million, and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms Millberg Coleman Bryson, Phillips Grossman, Mason LLP, Siri & Glimstad, Cole & Van Note, Srourian Law Firm, EXSM, and Kristensen Law Group. [GN] CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Sued Over Post-Operative Complications --------------------------------------------------------------- WSAZ News reports that The Charleston Area Medical Center is the center of a class action lawsuit that claims a doctor performed unnecessary and invasive hernia surgeries on patients. Litigation arises out of a class that the complaint states could consist of several hundred, if not thousands, of former patients. According to one plaintiff, a hiatal hernia repair was performed for the purpose of 'preempting post-operative complications' related to bariatric surgery that was performed. The complaint claims that 'such post-operative complications were neither expected nor likely' and the repair was 'not medically necessary.' The plaintiffs listed did not consent to the hernia procedure and, in fact, were unaware that it even occurred, according to the documents. The plaintiffs say they are now at risk of future complications from the unnecessary surgery. The accused doctor is no longer employed with CAMC. The complaint also says the doctor regularly performed such hernia surgeries during bariatric procedures and that the procedures were left concealed. Keep checking the WSAZ app for the latest information. [GN] CHOBANI LLC: Judge Dismisses Zero Sugar Label Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Diana Novak Jones, writing for Reuters, reports that Chobani escaped a proposed class action over claims its "Chobani Zero Sugar" yogurt actually contains sugar, after an Illinois federal judge on Thursday, May 29, said the labeling met U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements. The lawsuit accused Chobani of misleading consumers by failing to count the allulose -- a fruit-derived sweetener -- in the sugar content of its "Zero Sugar" products. U.S. District Judge John Tharp Jr. in Chicago said U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations govern how the yogurt is labeled and outweigh state consumer protection laws about labeling. The agency has not definitively said whether allulose is counted as sugar in its regulation governing nutrition labels for food products, but it has said that it is not currently treating allulose as a sugar and won't go after companies that leave it out of their products' sugar content listed on the label, Tharp said. Tharp dismissed the claims brought by the named plaintiffs and the proposed class of nationwide consumers. Attorneys for Chobani did not immediately respond to requests for comment, nor did attorneys for the proposed class. Four shoppers from Illinois, Arizona and Kansas filed the lawsuit in 2023, claiming they were misled by the "Zero Sugar" labeling on the yogurts. Allulose is a monosaccharide or simple sugar with a chemical structure similar to fructose, so it isn't "zero sugar," the shoppers said. The lawsuit, which brought claims under 37 states' consumer protection laws, sought damages and disgorgement of Chobani's profits, among other things. Chobani moved to dismiss the lawsuit, pointing to the FDA's statements on allulose. Allowing the lawsuit to move forward would deter the use of a sugar-substitute that the FDA believes could improve public health by reducing sugar consumption, the company said. Tharp agreed, saying that while the FDA hasn't issued its definitive statement on allulose, its comments on how it views allulose have expressly authorized the "Zero Sugar" label. The case is Jason Franco et al v. Chobani LLC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:23-cv-03047. For Chobani: Drew Tulumello of Weil, Gotshal & Manges; and Erik Ives of Fox Swibel Levin & Carroll For the plaintiffs: Yates French and Heather Kramer of Rathje Woodward; and Alexander Burke of Burke Law Offices. [GN] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Chappell Appeals Tithing Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL CHAPPELL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled In re: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Case No. 2:24-MD-03102-RJS-DAO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The Plaintiffs in this consolidated Multidistrict Litigation allege that over decades they have collectively donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Plaintiffs allege that beginning in about 1997 the Church established Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc. to act as a "slush fund" for charitable donations, including tithing from Church members. The Plaintiffs contend the Church did this to conceal its accounts, to prevent donors from learning about the scale of its financial holdings, and to obfuscate the Church's use of its funds. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which Judge Robert J. Shelby granted. Each of the Plaintiffs' claims is dismissed with prejudice. Finally, the Court denied as moot the Defendants' joint motion to strike. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. The appellate case is entitled In re: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Case No. 25-4068, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DANIEL CHAPPELL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Scott Allan George, Esq. Christopher Adam Seeger, Esq. Frazar Wright Thomas, Esq. SEEGER WEISS 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 - and - Scott A. Kitner, Esq. Martin Woodward, Esq. KITNER WOODWARD PLLC 13101 Preston Rd., Ste. 110 Dallas, TX 75240 - and - Yevgen Kovalov, Esq. James E. Magleby, Esq. MAGLEBY CATAXINOS 141 West Pierpont Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 359-9000 - and - Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq. Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Defendants-Appellees THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, et al. are represented by: Nicholas A. Aquart, Esq. Paul D. Clement, Esq. Andrew C. Lawrence, Esq. CLEMENT & MURPHY 706 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (202) 742-8900 - and - Randy T. Austin, Esq. Justin W. Starr, Esq. KIRTON MCCONKIE 50 East South Temple, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 328-3600 - and - Jason R. Burt, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 - and - Wesley F. Harward, Esq. David J. Jordan, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER 95 South State Street, Suite 2500 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 401-8900 - and - Mark S. Mester, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 - and - Wade Woodard, Esq. KIRTON MCCONKIE 2600 West Executive Parkway, Suite 400 Lehi, UT 84043 CLOUDFLARE INC: Files Motion for Leave to Appeal in Meghji Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- CLOUDFLARE, INC. is filing a motion for leave to appeal from a court order denying its motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Celsius Network LLC, et al., Debtors, Mohsin Y. Meghji, litigation administrator, as representative for the post-effective date Debtors, Plaintiff, v. Christopher Spadafora, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-03981, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Celsius filed suit in July 2024, asserting negligence and gross negligence claims against Cloudflare arising from an alleged failure to protect the funds that Celsius invested with BadgerDAO. Cloudflare moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim because, among other things, Celsius failed to sufficiently allege a duty of care-a threshold issue that dooms both claims. The appellate case is entitled Mohsin Y. Meghji, litigation administrator, as representative for the post-effective date Debtors, Plaintiff, v. Christopher Spadafora, et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-04444, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on May 28, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Appellant CLOUDFLARE, INC. is represented by: Matthew D. Ingber, Esq. Niketa K. Patel, Esq. Joaquin M. C de Baca, Esq. David Yolkut, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2373 Email: mingber@mayerbrown.com npatel@mayerbrown.com jcdebaca@mayerbrown.com dyolkut@mayerbrown.com COAST ALUMINUM: FLSA Conditional Cert Filing in Smith Due Dec. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. Coast Aluminum, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02129 (D. Or., Filed Dec. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Adrienne Nelson entered an order adopting the following class certification deadlines: -- The deadline to exchange initial disclosures is May 27, 2025. -- The deadline to complete pre-Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification discovery, including related to certification experts, is November 21, 2025. -- The deadline to file a motion for FLSA conditional certification is Dec. 12, 2025. -- The deadline to file a response to the motion for FLSA conditional certification is 30 days following the date of filing of the motion for FLSA conditional certification. -- The deadline to file a reply in support of the motion for FLSA conditional certification is 14 days following the date of filing of the response to the motion for FLSA conditional certification. -- The deadline to file a motion for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 23 class certification is May 15, 2026. -- The deadline to file a response to the motion for FRCP 23 class certification is 30 days following the date of filing of the motion for FRCP 23 class certification. -- The deadline to file a reply in support of the motion for FRCP 23 class certification is 14 days following the date of filing of the response to the motion for FRCP 23 class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). [CC] COASTAL ORTHOPEDICS: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.4-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a more than $1.4 million settlement has been reached to resolve a consolidated class action lawsuit that alleged negligent cybersecurity by Coastal Orthopedics & Sports Medicine of Southwest Florida, P.A. resulted in a June 2023 data breach. The court-authorized website for the Coastal Orthopedics data breach settlement can be found at CoastalOrthopedicsSettlement.com. The $1,403,646.30 deal covers a class of 203,427 United States residents whose private information may have been accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized third party as a result of the Coastal Orthopedics data breach, which was discovered on June 11, 2023. To receive benefits from the Coastal Orthopedics class action settlement, eligible class members must submit a valid claim form online or by mail by August 13, 2025. Head to this page to file a claim form through the official Coastal Orthopedics settlement website. To submit a Coastal Orthopedics settlement claim form online, you will need your unique class member ID, which was provided on the personalized settlement notice you received in the mail. Alternatively, you can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. According to the settlement agreement, class members who file a timely, valid claim form will be eligible to receive reimbursement of up to $10,000 per person for documented out-of-pocket expenses that were incurred between June 6, 2023 and August 13, 2025 and are "fairly traceable" to the data breach. Per the agreement, these monetary losses may include charges incurred as a result of identity theft or fraud, unreimbursed bank or credit card fees, credit monitoring costs, phone charges, postage, gas and other miscellaneous expenses. Consumers may also submit a claim form to receive two years of one-bureau credit monitoring services, including identity theft insurance and medical information monitoring, the settlement website relays. In addition, the site says that class members who file a claim form are eligible to receive a pro-rated cash payment from the Coastal Orthopedics settlement. According to the agreement, cash payout amounts will be calculated according to whether a consumer belongs to group 1—class members whose Social Security numbers were compromised during the data breach—or group 2—those whose Social Security numbers were not exposed as a result of the incident. Court documents estimate that group 1 may consist of 72,516 class members. The website states that cash payments to consumers in group 1 will be three times the amount distributed to those in group 2. The Coastal Orthopedics settlement received preliminary court approval in March 2025. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing on July 28, 2025. Settlement benefits will be issued to eligible class members only if the deal receives the final okay from the court, and after any appeals are resolved. [GN] COCA-COLA COMPANY: Palmer Sues Over Beverages' Natural Flavors Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ VICTORIA PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04777 (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Coca-Cola's beverage products. According to the complaint, the Defendant marketed and prominently labeled the products as being made with "100% Natural Flavors." In reality, these products contain significant amounts of synthetic ingredients that are integral and indispensable to their flavor systems, rendering the labeling false, deceptive, misleading, and fraudulent. Had the Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers been made aware that the products contained a substantial amount of synthetic flavoring ingredients, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. The Coca-Cola Company is a manufacturer of beverage products, with its principal place of business in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com - and - Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108 St. George, UT 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: jason@kazlg.com - and - Gil Melili, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: gil@kazlg.com CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert Filing Extended to Feb. 19, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RISING PHOENIX ROYALTY FUND III LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CONTANGO RESOURCES, LLC; CONTANGO RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00238-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Scott P. Klosterman entered an order granting second joint motion to extend amended scheduling order deadlines: Event Deadline Fact Discovery for Class Certification Sept. 4, 2025 Discovery Deadline (not including expert discovery): Plaintiff's Rule 26 Expert Disclosures for Oct. 7, 2025 Class Certification, including Expert Report(s) (not filed of record): Defendants' Rule 26 Expert Disclosures Dec. 17, 2025 for Class Certification, including Expert Report(s) (not filed of record): Plaintiff's Rule 26 Rebuttal Expert Jan. 20, 2026 Disclosures for Class Certification, including Rebuttal Expert Report(s) (not filed of record): Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion: Feb. 19, 2026 Defendants' Class Certification Response: March 31, 2026 Plaintiff's Class Certification Reply: April 30, 2026 In Person Class Certification Hearing: May 19, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Contango is an independent oil and natural gas company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oIwRqf at no extra charge.[CC] COOPER UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Colleen Murphy, writing for NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, reports that Cooper University Health Care is facing a class action lawsuit after a data breach potentially exposed the personal information of tens of thousands of current and former patients. The lawsuit, filed in federal court this week, accuses the Camden-based health system of failing to adequately protect sensitive data and of delaying notification to those affected. According to the complaint, more than 57,000 patients were impacted. Cooper has not confirmed that number but said it notified individuals whose information was identified during a comprehensive review of the compromised data. In a press release issued last week, Cooper shared its account of the incident. The health system said it first detected "unusual activity" on its network on May 14, 2024, and immediately took steps to secure its systems. It hired a leading digital forensics firm to investigate the breach and determine whether any sensitive data had been compromised. That investigation concluded on March 26, 2025, and Cooper began mailing notification letters to potentially affected individuals on May 23, 2025. The health system said it acted "as quickly as possible" once it had identified the individuals whose data was involved. "Cooper undertook a comprehensive review of the impacted data to identify the individuals and information involved," the press release stated. "Cooper then took steps to provide notification as quickly as possible." However, the lawsuit argues that the delay left patients vulnerable and unprotected for too long. "Defendant waited more than a year after being made aware of the data breach to notify impacted individuals," the complaint alleges. "This delay deprived patients of the opportunity to take timely steps to protect themselves." The compromised data may have included names, addresses, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers, medical information, and health insurance details. Cooper emphasized that not all data elements were exposed for every individual and that there is no evidence of "actual misuse of any of the information potentially involved in this incident." Ana Hernandez, a Camden resident and Cooper patient, is the lead plaintiff in the case and has already been affected by the breach, she claims. "The data breach has caused plaintiff to suffer fear, anxiety, and stress," the complaint reads. "She has experienced a significant uptick in spam calls, text messages, and emails." The lawsuit accuses Cooper of negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. It seeks monetary damages and demands stronger data protection measures. Cooper said it has notified the FBI, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and consumer reporting agencies. It is offering free identity protection services through IDX, a ZeroFox company, to those impacted. Affected individuals can reach representatives Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., excluding holidays, at 1-877-623-0094. Individuals who did not receive a notification letter can call to verify eligibility for identity protection services. [GN] CV SCIENCES: "Colette" Food Labelling Suit Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- CV Sciences, 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 lawsuit filed by Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw alleging the labelling on the Company's products violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, remains stayed. On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw filed a putative class action complaint in the Central District of California, alleging the labeling on the Company's products violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (the "Colette Complaint"). On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Colette Complaint. Instead of opposing the Company's motion, plaintiffs elected to file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court issued a ruling on May 22, 2020 that stayed this proceeding in its entirety and dismissed part of the amended complaint. The court's order stated that the portion of the proceeding that is stayed will remain stayed until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") completes its rulemaking regarding the marketing, including labelling, of CBD ingestible products. However, on January 26, 2023, the FDA announced that it does not intend to pursue rulemaking allowing the use of cannabidiol products in dietary supplements or conventional foods. As a result, on February 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a status report with the court asking to have the stay lifted. The Company filed a written opposition. The court has taken no action since Plaintiffs filed that status report, and the case remains stayed pursuant to the court's original order. DG3 NORTH AMERICA: Class Settlement in Cunningham Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL CUNNINGHAM and DEBRA DE SALVO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DG3 NORTH AMERICA, INC., JOHN HANCOCK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, and USB FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-07385-WJM-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge William Martini entered an order preliminary approving class action settlement. The Court provisionally certifies a class in this matter defined as follows: "All persons residing in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class excludes (a) the judge(s) to whom the Action is assigned and any member of those judges' staffs or immediate family members; (b) counsel for the Parties, any member of their respective staffs who worked directly on the Action, and any member of their immediate families; (c) any governmental entity; (d) any entity in which any of the Defendants have a controlling interest; (e) any of Defendants' subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and (f) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XDwd1n at no extra charge.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Public Safety Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- On May 29, 2025, three leading legal civil rights defenders, Disability Rights Advocates, Relman Colfax PLLC, and The Washington Lawyers' Committee, have joined forces to file a critical public safety class action lawsuit against the District of Columbia on behalf of the DC Council of the Blind (DCCB) and five named plaintiffs. The complaint highlights systemic barriers that prevent individuals with disabilities from safely crossing the vast majority of signalized intersections in the District, depriving them of equal participation in public life. Read the complaint. While the District has installed visual pedestrian signals at more than 1,600 intersections to ensure the safety of its sighted pedestrians, only a fraction of those intersections have devices with auditory, tactile and vibrotactile cues -- Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) -- to make them accessible to blind pedestrians. Equally problematic, the modest number of signals equipped with APS are plagued by installation and maintenance issues. The class action lawsuit presents claims on behalf of people with disabilities who -- in the absence of APS -- have encountered significant challenges in navigating one of the nation's most walkable cities. Without APS, tens of thousands of blind pedestrians who live in, work in, or visit the District are left to guess whether it is safe to cross the street. In addition to endangering blind pedestrians, these experiences demean them by compromising their ability to travel through the District safely and independently, and isolate them from work, education, recreation, religious services, cultural events, and shopping. When blind pedestrians must spend extra time or money to navigate the District without functional APS, they are paying a "blindness tax" to participate fully in daily activities. "As a blind resident of DC who lives, works, socializes, plays in, and navigates this city independently, I'm part of this class action because I'm tired of having to play a high-stakes guessing game just to cross the street," said Kevin Andrews, one of the lead plaintiffs. "Sighted pedestrians get clear, immediate access to traffic signals and pedestrian signal information without delay or hesitation. Meanwhile, we are left waiting, listening, and hoping the quiet car creeping through the intersection sees us. It should not take a leap of faith to make it to work, Safeway, a medical appointment, or a friend's birthday without risking your life." The plaintiffs allege that these failures violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. "Accessibility is not optional; it is a legal right and a safety imperative," said Michael Allen, Partner at Relman Colfax. "Failure to meet compliance standards compromises the well-being, as well as the independence and dignity of individuals with disabilities, undermining the principles of equal opportunity and inclusion." Through this class action, plaintiffs are seeking swift and comprehensive injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all blind pedestrians who have been discriminatorily denied the benefits of the District's pedestrian signals program. "As a result of lawsuits in New York and Chicago, the District has two models for meeting the ADA and other legal requirements," said Kaitlin Banner, Deputy Legal Director at the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. "As part of the City's masterplan to boost roadway safety, we can collaborate with officials to transform our intersections into safe, accessible, and inclusive spaces for all pedestrians." "APS provide life-saving traffic-safety information to blind pedestrians, but only when properly installed, programmed and maintained," said Rachel Weisberg, Supervising Attorney at Disability Rights Advocates. "We are proud to partner with the blind community in D.C. to continue our work making streets across the country accessible." With the District planning to unveil a new Vision Zero Action Plan in 2025 and having already announced a new initiative in 2025 to curb traffic deaths, it is now imperative to ensure accessibility is prioritized in every part of the process, to avoid repeating or duplicating efforts down the road. "APS is a key tool in my independence toolbox, and until the city adopts its widespread use, it makes it that much harder for me and my blind and low-vision community to live the independent and full lives that everyone deserves, regardless of disability," said Qudsiya Naqui, another lead plaintiff included in the complaint. "It is confusing and dangerous for us to cross the streets in DC," said Reverend Ray Raysor, President of DCCB, the organizational plaintiff in the complaint. "We don't know when to go or how long the light lasts, so it feels like we have to take our lives in our hands every time we get to a corner without APS." "I am part of this case to make a difference for people who are blind and visually impaired like me," said Gerald Barnes, one of the lead plaintiffs in the complaint. "It is tough for me to get across many streets in DC and I want the City to do more to make sure we have an equal shot to get around the City." "We're bringing this case to make DC focus on the necessities of accessibility for the blind and visually impaired community in the nation's capital," said Raymond Smith, another lead plaintiff in the complaint. "I love the city of Washington D.C., but I do not love having to navigate the complicated spokes, islands, and circles that make up the city design without functioning APS," said Claire Stanley, one of the lead plaintiffs in this case. "As someone who is blind, I travel safely by reading traffic patterns, but in D.C., the traffic patterns are often too complicated to understand. Accessible pedestrian signals enable me to travel more safely through the city and navigate these complicated traffic patterns. So, when the APS is out-of-order or simply not there, I feel limited by where I can go in the city, keeping me from a city I love." Disability Rights Advocates (DRA): With offices in California, New York, and Illinois, Disability Rights Advocates is the leading national nonprofit disability rights legal center. Its mission is to advance equal rights and opportunity for people with all types of disabilities nationwide. DRA represents people with all types of disabilities in complex, system-changing, class action cases. Thanks to DRA's precedent-setting work, people with disabilities across the country have dramatically improved access to education, health care, employment, transportation, disaster preparedness planning, voting, and housing. For more information, visit www.dralegal.org. Relman Colfax: Relman Colfax: Relman Colfax PLLC is a national civil rights law firm with a litigation practice focused on combating discrimination. The firm's disability rights practice is driven by a commitment to secure the promises of housing choice and community integration embodied in federal disability rights laws. For more information, visit https://www.relmanlaw.com/practices-35 Washington Lawyers' Committee: The Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs partners with community members and organizations on scores of cases to combat discrimination in housing, employment, education, immigration, criminal justice reform, public accommodations, based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. The Washington Lawyers' Committee has secured a relentless stream of civil rights victories over the past five decades in an effort to achieve justice for all. For more information, please visit www.washlaw.org. [GN] EAGLE BANCORP: M&A Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Eagle Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: EGBN) resulting from allegations that Eagle Bancorp may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. If you purchased Eagle Bancorp securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2145 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 23, 2025, after market hours, Eagle Bancorp filed with the SEC a current report on Form 8-K, which included an announcement of Eagle Bancorp's Q1 2025 results. Commenting on these results, an article posted on investing.com the next day stated that Eagle Bancorp's Q1 2025 announcement revealed a "notable miss on both earnings per share (EPS) and revenue compared to forecasts." On this news, Eagle Bancorp's stock price fell 11.3% on April 24, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] EAP OHIO: Seeks Denial of Plaintiffs' Bid for Summary Judgment -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GATEWAY ROYALTY LLC, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EAP OHIO LLC, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02813-CEF (N.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to deny the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment without prejudice, or, alternatively, to stay briefing pending ruling on class certification. The Plaintiffs filed the class action complaint and an amended class action complaint alleging that the Defendants breached oil and gas leases in various respects by calculating royalties after accounting for the lessors' proportionate share of post-production costs. EAP is an affiliate of Encino Acquisition Partners (EAP), which is a partnership formed by Encino Energy and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB). A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L1sAG5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy B. McGranor, Esq. Mitchell A. Tobias, Esq. Ilya Batikov, Esq. Matthew D. Fazekas, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 52 East Gay Street Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Telephone: (614) 464-6400 Facsimile: (614) 719-4954 E-mail: tbmcgranor@vorys.com matobias@vorys.com ibatikov@vorys.com mdfazekas@vorys.com - and - Daniel T. Donovan, Esq. Holly Rioux-Lefebvre, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 389-5000 Facsimile: (202) 389-5200 E-mail: ddonovan@kirkland.com holly.rioux@kirkland.com EMAX HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit Re Ethereummax Investor Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00163-MWF-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their application for leave to file under seal certain documents filed with the Plaintiffs' replies in support of motion for class certification. The specific documents that Defendants seek the Court's permission to file under seal are: Exhibits A through H of the Declaration of John T. Jasnoch in support of the Plaintiffs' replies in support of motion for class certification, which are documents produced by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, as well as testimonies and/or expert reports that cite to and quote from discovery documents produced in this litigation. The unredacted versions of the Plaintiffs' reply briefs in support of their motion for class certification. The redacted versions that the Plaintiffs seek the Court's permission to file publicly contain redactions of certain information that refer to, and quote from, Exhibits A through H. Each of these materials has either been designated as confidential by either Defendants or Third Parties pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case or refers to information that has been designated as confidential. The undersigned submits that the materials sought to be sealed contain personally identifiable information that courts typically seal, like personal telephone numbers and/or email addresses. The materials sought to be sealed also contain confidential personal financial information like cryptocurrency addresses. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VkJu7n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 EPIQ SYSTEMS: Reduces Class Action Payouts, Whalen Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY JANE WHALEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., ANGEION GROUP LLC, JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION, HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04499 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, and violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The case arises from the Administrator Defendants' engagement in a deceptive and anticompetitive scheme to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed kickbacks and compensation from the Bank Defendants, while increasing the costs and depressing the payouts on thousands of class actions. Administrator Defendants entered into an ongoing agreement with each other to increase the cost and price of class administration services, including by having Bank Defendants pay them the interest and investments earned on class action settlement deposits that would have otherwise been distributed to class members and used to pay down the cost of class administration services. The Plaintiffs bring this action to bring an end to the Defendants' unlawful practices, enjoin them from continued use of the kickbacks for their own benefit, to compensate the class members for the harm caused by the Defendants' illegal conduct, and to stop the anticompetitive practices that they have carried on, which has depressed payouts substantially in class actions in the United States. Epiq Systems, Inc. is a settlement administration company based in Kansas. Angeion Group LLC is a class action administration company based in Pennsylvania. JND Legal Administration is a class action administration company based in Washington. Huntington National Bank is a regional bank holding company based in Ohio. Western Alliance Bank is a federally chartered bank based in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam R. Shaw, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 30 South Pearl Street, 12 Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 694-4227 Email: ashaw@bsfllp.com - and - David Boies, Esq. 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Email: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Mark C. Mao, Esq. 44 Montgomery St., 41st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 293-6800 Email: mmao@bsfllp.com - and - James Lee, Esq. 100 SE 2nd St., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Email: jlee@bsfllp.com - and - Alison L. Anderson, Esq. Samantha Parrish, Esq. 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1520 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 629-9040 Email: alanderson@bsfllp.com sparrish@bsfllp.com - and - Michael Mitchell, Esq. 1401 New York Ave, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Email: mmitchell@bsfllp.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Parties Seek Extension of All Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SPENCER HECKATHORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 4:24-cv-00174-CVE-MTS (N.D. Okla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of all deadlines by 90 days, and adopting the amended scheduling order. The new proposed dates are as follows: Merit/class certification discovery cut off: Aug. 27, 2025; Class certification deadline: Sept. 24, 2025; Class certification response deadline: Oct. 17, 2025; Class certification reply deadline: Oct. 29, 2025; The Parties diligently served and exchanged discovery. Defendants have produced substantial documentation. The Parties have also worked diligently and cooperatively on subpoenas to third-parties by issuing 14 subpoenas. The need for the extension is not the fault of either party, who have been working diligently with one another and the various third-parties who they subpoenaed. The proposed extension will not prejudice any party. Not extending the current deadline, however, will prejudice the Parties' ability to fully brief a motion for class certification. Because the Parties agree additional time is necessary, and the Parties have worked diligently and cooperatively, it is clear no party would be unduly prejudiced by the proposed extension. Trial has not been scheduled and this extension would not impact any trial deadline. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who received calls and text messages from several Farmers insurance agents, in this Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class-action. Farmers provides insurance products and services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8ylxZg at no extra charge.[CC] FLORIDA: Federal Judge OKs Class Lawsuit Over Inmates' Rights ------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Saunders, writing for WLRN, reports that a federal judge has rejected a request by Florida corrections officials to dismiss a potential class-action lawsuit alleging the state has violated inmates' rights because of hot conditions at a prison in Miami-Dade County. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams on Wednesday, May 28, issued a 30-page ruling that said inmates at Dade Correctional Institution can pursue claims under the U.S. Constitution's 8th Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act and a disabilities-related law known as the Rehabilitation Act. The 8th Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment. Williams' ruling described a prison with a large number of older inmates that does not have air conditioning or adequate ventilation in dormitories or in the dining area. It also detailed heat indexes that often top 100 degrees in South Florida and said inmates are "regularly and consistently exposed to heat indexes within the NWS (National Weather Service) danger zone during the summer months." "Plaintiffs further allege that the issue of excessive heat at Dade CI is exacerbated by insufficient ventilation systems," Williams wrote. "Plaintiffs allege that the ventilation systems in the dormitories, which were installed decades ago, have not been adequately maintained and are missing critical components, such as fans and motors." Attorneys for three inmates filed the lawsuit in October against the state Department of Corrections, Corrections Secretary Ricky Dixon and Dade Correctional Institution Warden Francisco Acosta. It seeks class-action status, though Williams has not ruled on that issue. The prison has a capacity of 1,521 inmates. The named plaintiffs are Dwayne Wilson, who was described in the lawsuit as a 66-year-old inmate with hypertension, an enlarged prostate and a burn scar over much of his body that impairs his ability to sweat; Tyrone Harris, a 54-year-old inmate who has conditions such as hypertension and asthma; and Gary Wheeler, a 65-year-old inmate who has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. READ MORE: Get ready for several years of killer heat, top weather forecasters warn In a December motion to dismiss the case, the state's attorneys argued, in part, that the 8th Amendment argument "fails because the facts do not give rise to a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiffs, nor demonstrate that Secretary Dixon or Warden Acosta has been deliberately indifferent to the conditions and risks faced by these (named) plaintiffs in particular." "By itself, the lack of air conditioning does not pose a substantial risk of serious harm. The deprivation required to allege an Eighth Amendment claim must be objectively 'extreme' enough to deny an inmate 'the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.' The allegations of the complaint (the lawsuit) have not 'cleared this high bar.'" the motion said, partially quoting legal precedents. But Williams wrote that the lawsuit "alleges a wide range of heat related injuries: heat exhaustion, heat cramps, heat stroke, and death. Plaintiffs also extensively detail how excessive heat can exacerbate underlying medical conditions, in a facility where over 50 percent of all prisoners are over the age of 50. Finally, plaintiffs allege that, since 2021, extreme heat has contributed to the deaths of at least four individuals at Dade CI." She also said that attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote to Acosta in September 2023 "detailing concerns about the extreme heat, lack of ventilation, and the serious threat of medical harm posted to the inmates based on those conditions. The court finds that the allegations plaintiffs raise about the ongoing excessive heat issues at Dade CI easily support the plausible inference that defendants were subjectively aware of the risks of heat-related harms." The Miami-based judge also cited a report published in 2023 by the KPMG consulting firm, which had received a state contract to develop a master plan for the Department of Corrections. "The report concluded that most FDC (Florida Department of Corrections) dormitories, including those at Dade CI, require retrofitting to comply with current ventilation standards, and that over one-third of FDC facilities were assessed to be in 'critical' or 'poor' condition," Williams wrote. [GN] FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: S.D. New York Dismisses Conley Student Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendant's motion and dismisses the lawsuit titled COOPER CONLEY and HENRY WALLACE, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05962-MMG (S.D.N.Y.). The action is one of a litany of lawsuits brought against colleges and universities throughout the cormtry challenging their responses to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Spring of 2020. In response to unprecedented public health challenges and Governor Cuomo's Executive Orders declaring a state of emergency in New York and imposing strict rules on congregate activity, Defendant Fordham University cancelled in-person events and activities, suspended in-person classes, restricted access to its campus and on-campus services, and transitioned to virtual classes for the remainder of the Spring 2020 term. On behalf of themselves and a putative class, Plaintiffs Cooper Conley and Henry Wallace, who were enrolled as undergraduate students at Fordham in 2020, seek, inter alia, damages and restitution, including a partial refund of tuition for services not provided (e.g., in-person classes) offset against the market value of the services actually provided (e.g., virtual classes), on state law claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Before the Court is Fordham's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the basis that the "interests of justice" exception to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") applies. The Court agrees. Upon reviewing the parties' briefing, the Court finds that dismissal of the Consolidated Complaint is in the interests of justice, given that the majority of the factors weigh in favor of dismissal. As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Fordham has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that approximately 50% of the members of the proposed class are citizens of New York--greater than one-third but less than two-thirds of the members of the proposed class. Based on the balance of the six factors under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3), and the totality of the circumstances, the Court holds that dismissing this action would be in the interests of justice because it would allow a New York state court to apply New York law to a New York defendant and a putative class--approximately 50% of which are citizens of New York, which is well within the citizenship range of greater than one-third but less than two-thirds--allegedly harmed by activity that occurred in New York. On the Preceding Class Action Factor, Judge Garnett opines that the Plaintiffs do not dispute that a similar action has not been filed within the last three years, and the Plaintiffs' reference to Hassan v. Fordham University is of no moment. For these reasons, the Court grants Fordham's motion to dismiss and will decline to exercise jurisdiction under CAFA, pursuant to the interests of justice exception. Nothing in the Court's ruling goes to the merits of the asserted claims or the ability of the Plaintiffs, if they choose, to file this action in another court. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/m9xd2cz7 from PacerMonitor.com. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREY SMITH-JOURNIGAN, Individually and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated, et al., v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an additional 14 days, until June 13, 2025, within which to file its response to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify class. Pursuant to S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.3(a), the Defense counsel has consulted with the Plaintiffs' counsel, and this motion is unopposed. The Defendant is mindful that it has requested multiple extensions and intends no disrespect to the Court, the Plaintiffs, or their counsel. However, briefing the issues has taken substantially more time than counsel anticipated. In addition, it is anticipated that declarations will be submitted as supporting material to Defendant's opposition. In addition to previously mentioned personal and professional conflicts among the Defendant's counsel, some of the individuals for whom declaration(s) are being prepared are on vacation and/or have professional commitments that have made it challenging to secure their input and participation in advance of the current deadline. To be blunt, when requesting the last extension, counsel failed to fully account for the effect of the summer holiday, particularly as to personal schedules. Counsel for the Defendant will not be seeking any further extensions. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RVcFXu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Aaron M. Glasgow, Esq. Michael S. Loughry, Esq. Scott O. Sheets, Esq. ISAAC WILES & BURKHOLDER & MILLER, LLC Two Miranova Place, Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-2121 Facsimile: (614) 365-9516 E-mail: aglasgow@isaacwiles.com mloughry@isaacwiles.com ssheets@isaacwiles.com - and - Shayla D. Favor, Esq. Amy L. Hiers, Esq. Jesse W. Armstrong, Esq. 373 South High Street, 13th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6318 Telephone: (614) 525-3520 Facsimile: (614) 525-6013 E-mail: ahiers@frankincountyohio.gov jarmstrong@franklincountyohio.gov GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Engines -------------------------------------------------------------- A new class action lawsuit alleges that General Motors equipped certain vehicles with defective engines that are prone to catastrophic failure and issued an "inadequate" recall to address the issues. Lead plaintiff Robert Houchin filed the class action lawsuit against GM on May 16 in Michigan federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the GM class action lawsuit, certain vehicles are equipped with defective 6.2-liter V8 EcoTec3 L87 engines that are prone to catastrophic failure. The plaintiffs allege that the engines are susceptible to damage and sudden failure, resulting in a loss of power during vehicle operation. They say the defect arises from improper crankshaft dimensions and surface finish, along with bearings that cannot withstand the heat and friction generated in the engines. The affected vehicles include 2021-2024 Cadillac Escalade, 2021-2024 Cadillac Escalade ESV, 2019-2024 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, 2021-2024 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2021-2024 Chevrolet Suburban, 2019-2024 GMC Sierra 1500, 2021-2024 GMC Yukon and 2021-2024 GMC Yukon XL, the GM class action states. GM knew of defect and recall is inadequate, plaintiffs claim The plaintiffs allege that GM was aware of the defect but failed to disclose it to consumers. They claim that GM conducted three internal investigations into the issue, with the first one closing in February 2022, but the company did not take action to remedy the problem. The plaintiffs further allege that GM's recent recall of the affected vehicles is inadequate, as it does not address the root causes of the defect. The class action claims that the GM recall only offers a temporary fix by replacing the stock oil with a higher viscosity oil rather than redesigning the defective components. The plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone who purchased or leased an affected vehicle. They are suing for breach of warranty and fraudulent omission and are seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. On April 24, GM recalled nearly 600,000 vehicles, including select 2021–2024 Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC models, due to potential engine failures caused by defective components that could increase the risk of a crash. What do you think of the allegations in this GM class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by E. Powell Miller, Dennis A. Lienhardt and Dana E. Fraser of The Miller Law Firm P.C.; Adam J. Levitt, John E. Tangren, Daniel R. Ferri and Madeline E. Hill of DiCello Levitt LLP; W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III, H. Clay Barnett III, J. Mitch Williams, Dylan T. Martin and Trenton H. Mann of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles P.C.; Timothy G. Blood, Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Paula R. Brown and Adam M. Bucci of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP; and Nicholas H. Wooten of Cheeley Law Group LLC. The General Motors class action lawsuit is Houchin, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11462, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Class Suit Over Vehicles' Defective Shifter ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that General Motors agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that certain vehicles were equipped with a defective shifter that caused a "Shift to Park" issue. The GM class action lawsuit settlement benefits initial purchasers and lessees of 2017-2019 GMC Acadia, 2019 Chevrolet Blazer, 2016-2019 Chevrolet Malibu, 2018-2019 Chevrolet Traverse or 2016-2019 Chevrolet Volt vehicles in Ohio or initial purchasers and lessees of 2017-2018 GMC Acadia vehicles in Tennessee. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim that certain GM vehicles were equipped with a defective shifter that caused a "Shift to Park" issue. This issue allegedly prevented drivers from turning off their vehicles and caused other problems. General Motors is an automotive company that sells vehicles under the Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC and Buick brands. GM has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a $500 cash payment. This payment will be divided equally among any class members who co-own or co-lease a vehicle covered by the settlement. Class members who paid out-of-pocket for repairs related to the "Shift to Park" issue can receive reimbursement of up to $375 for these expenses. Class members who appear in GM's warranty and customer pay data will automatically receive this reimbursement. Class members who do not appear in this data will need to submit a claim form and supporting documentation to receive reimbursement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 21, 2025. The final approval hearing for the GM class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for Aug. 22, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 19, 2025. Who's Eligible For the Ohio subclass, initial purchasers and lessees of 2017-2019 GMC Acadia, 2019 Chevrolet Blazer, 2016-2019 Chevrolet Malibu, 2018-2019 Chevrolet Traverse or 2016-2019 Chevrolet Volt vehicles who purchased or leased their vehicles in Ohio, who sought a repair from a GM dealer regarding the Shift to Park issue during the warranty period and who were not provided with a silicon-free replacement part. For the Tennessee subclass, initial purchasers and lessees of 2017-2018 GMC Acadia vehicles who purchased or leased those vehicles in Tennessee, who sought a repair from a GM dealer regarding the Shift to Park issue during the warranty period and who were not provided with either a silicon-free replacement shifter assembly or silicon-free shifter control wire harness at no charge. Potential Award Up to $875 Proof of Purchase Class members who do not appear in GM's warranty data must submit a claim form to receive the $500 cash payment. Those who must submit supporting documentation to receive a reimbursement of up to $375 for out-of-pocket repair expenses must submit either an invoice and/or other combination of repair documentation, such as a repair order or service record. 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 08/19/2025 Case Name Jefferson v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02576, and Riley v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02982, both in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Final Hearing 08/22/2025 Settlement Website STPLawsuit.com Claims Administrator Jefferson & Riley v. General Motors Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301132 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132 admin@stplawsuit.com (833) 419-4818 Class Counsel Sergei Lemberg LEMBERG LAW LLC Defense Counsel John Nadolenco MAYER BROWN LLP [GN] GENESCO INC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Edwards Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ AUDRA EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENESCO INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00115-MW-HTC (N.D. Fla., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unlawful telemarketing messages to consumers' telephone numbers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its goods and services without prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, including inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion upon seclusion, wasted time, violation of their statutory privacy rights, and disruption to their personal and daily life. Genesco Inc. is a specialty retail company, with its principal place of business in Davidson County, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (305) 900-4653 Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com GNC HOLDINGS: Class Cert Scheduling Order in Moquete Suit Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEA MOQUETE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GNC HOLDINGS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-05393-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin Settle entered an order granting the Parties' stipulated motion to stay proceedings. 1. The case is stayed pending the Washington Supreme Court's consideration of the certified question in Branson v. Washington Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-00589- JHC, 2024 WL 4510680, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 20, 2024). 2. All deadlines in the scheduling order setting discovery and class certification briefing schedule are vacated. 3. The Parties shall meet and confer promptly after entry of the Washington Supreme Court's decision on the certified question in Branson to discuss a new class certification briefing schedule for this action. 4. The Parties shall jointly file with the Court their proposed class certification briefing schedule (or competing schedules), as agreed in their Stipulated Motion, within 30 days after entry of the Washington Supreme Court's decision on the certified question in Branson. GNC is an American multinational retail and nutritional manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sex5mo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. Avi Kreitenberg, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com ak@ackermanntilajef.com The Defendants are represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Brian H. Rho, Esq. LITTLER MENDLESON, P.C. 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com brho@littler.com GOOGLE INC: Former Judge Leads Multi-Billion-Pound Search Ads' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ICLG reports that the US technology giant is once again under fire for its alleged anticompetitive search advertising practices. Class action proceedings were initiated against Google on Tuesday, May 27, accusing the tech titan of abusing its dominant position in the search advertising market. The collective proceedings application was filed with the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) by former deputy High Court judge Roger Kaye KC, who is working alongside collective redress law firm KP Law to bring the claim. By exploiting its position at the top of the market, Kaye alleges, Google has stifled competition and hiked up prices for advertisers who are left paying more than they should have for advertisements. According to the claim, between 500,000 and 1.5 million advertisers have been left to pay "excessive and unfair prices" for search advertisements because of the tech company's deals with device manufacturers that pushed out competitors by making Google the default search option. KP Law has stated that the value of the claim exceeds GBP 15 billion. The opt-out class action has been filed on behalf of any advertiser who paid for Google Search advertisements between 1 January 2011 and 27 May 2025, advertised in the UK and paid either Google or third-party intermediaries for the advertising services. Google, Google Ireland, Google UK and their parent company Alphabet have all been named as defendants. In an emailed statement to ICLG News, a spokesperson for Google said: "These types of meritless claims are brought by lawyers seeking profit and bring little-to-no benefit to those they represent. Consumers and advertisers use Google because it's helpful, not because there are no alternatives." The news comes just a month after or Brook Class Representative Limited initiated similar class action proceedings against Google over its alleged anti-competitive practices in the UK search advertising market. KP Law has told the press that what differentiates this action from the others that have come before it is its specific claim for damages for "abusive exploitative behaviour". Duncan Hedar, who heads up the competition department at KP Law, said in a statement: "In contrast to previous cases filed in the UK, Mr Kaye KC seeks to take the action one step further by rightly compensating the vast number of businesses who've had to suffer the imposition of Google's abuse of power." He continued: "The unlawful conduct has already been proven by both the European Commission and a US court, and it is time that all affected UK advertisers are duly compensated for the financial repercussions to their business." Kaye commented: "This case marks a significant step in reestablishing a fair and competitive landscape for all advertisers. Monopolising the advertising space to the point of abuse cannot continue." GLOBAL SCRUTINY In January 2025, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced that it had launched an investigation to ascertain whether Google holds "strategic market status" in search and search advertising activities under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. That investigation is still ongoing. Scrutiny over Google's practices is not limited to the UK. In March, the European Commission published its preliminary findings that the Google Search product had favoured Alphabet's own services over its competitors' in breach of the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA). The Commission also announced its preliminary view that Alphabet had infringed the DMA by preventing consumers from being directed to other channels for the best offer on its app marketplace Google Play. Last month, the US Department of Justice prevailed in a lawsuit accusing Google of monopolising the open-web digital advertising markets, with the court ruling that Google had harmed "[its] publishing customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumer of information on the open web." And in Ireland, the first ever representative proceedings under the EU Collective Redress Directive were greenlit by the High Court this week (26 May). The case alleges that Microsoft's -- one of Google's top rivals -- online advertising practices constitute a "data breach" in violation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). [GN] GRAIL INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- GRAIL, 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 suit pending with the Southern District of California. On November 11, 2023, the first of three securities class action complaints was filed against Illumina and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The first-filed case is captioned Kangas v. Illumina, Inc. et al., the second-filed case is captioned Roy v. Illumina, Inc. et al., and the third-filed case is captioned Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v. Illumina, Inc. et al. (collectively, the "Actions"). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts relating to Illumina's acquisition of Grail. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On January 9, 2024, four movants filed motions to consolidate the Actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff Motions"). On April 11, 2024, the Court issued an order consolidating the Actions into a single action (captioned in re Illumina, Inc. Securities Litigation No. 23-cv-2082-LL-MMP), and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, and ACATIS Investment Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs. (the "Lead Plaintiffs"). On June 21, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that GRAIL, in addition to Illumina, and certain of their respective current and former directors and others violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL and disclosures concerning the same. GRAIL has an indemnification obligation for certain current and former directors and officers involved in the matter pursuant to indemnification agreements entered into by these individuals and GRAIL. On September 13, 2024 the plaintiffs further amended the complaint. The Company denies the allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. In light of the fact that the lawsuits are in an early stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the suits. GWD CONCEPT: Settles False Discount Class Action Suit for $2.7MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Displate agreed to pay $2.7 million as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it deceptively advertised discounts on its products. The settlement benefits consumers in Oregon, California or Washington who purchased products at a discount or promotional rate on Displate.com between Jan. 1, 2019, and April 23, 2025. According to the class action lawsuit, Displate advertised "discounted" prices on its products, but these prices were actually the same as the regular prices. The plaintiffs say they were tricked into buying products from Displate because they thought they were getting a good deal. Displate has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.7 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Displate settlement, class members can receive either a cash payment or a store credit. All class members will be eligible for an $18 settlement benefit. Class members who submit a valid claim form by July 22 will receive their settlement benefit in cash. Class members who do not submit a claim form will receive their settlement benefit as store credit. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 23, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Displate settlement is scheduled for Aug. 1, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 22, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who, while in the states of Oregon, California or Washington, purchased products at a discount or promotional rate on Displate.com between Jan. 1, 2019, and April 23, 2025. Potential Award $18 cash payment or store credit 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 07/22/2025 Case Name Cameron Yates, et al. v. GWD Concept Sp. z.o.o., Case No. 24CV59941, in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon Final Hearing 08/01/2025 Settlement Website DisplateSettlement.com Claims Administrator Cameron Yates et al. v. GWD Concept Sp. z.o.o. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 421-5655 Class Counsel Simon Franzini Grace Bennett DOVEL & LUNER LLP Defense Counsel Joshua Briones Arameh O'Boyle Grecia Rivas-Rudra MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C. [GN] HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR SANTOS and AMANDA CLEMENTS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC d/b/a ARS ACCOUNT RESOLUTION SERVICES, and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. (EIS), Case No. 1:19-cv-23084-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file under seal the Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. EIS requests that the Opposition remain under seal indefinitely. The Opposition contains similar references to and information from depositions, declarations, and expert reports that have been designated "Confidential" by EIS pursuant to the parties' Stipulated Protective Order. The Opposition further contains confidential, sensitive, and proprietary information belonging to EIS regarding its policies and procedures for reporting consumer credit information. A redacted version of the Opposition will be filed on the public docket. Healthcare is a specialized organization that assists healthcare providers in recovering unpaid or overdue medical debts. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nBru5T at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ana Maria Cristina Perez Soto, Esq. William R. Taylor, Esq. John A. Vogt, Esq. JONES DAY 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 714-9700 Facsimile: (305) 714-9799 E-mail: cperezsoto@jonesday.com wrtaylor@jonesday.com javogt@jonesday.com HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Class Settlement in Story Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX STORY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00724-TJC-SJH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Corrigan entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and setting final approval hearing for Sept 25, 2025. 1. The Settlement Class is defined as: "All natural persons who enrolled in MySchoolBucks and paid Program Fees to Heartland on credit or debit card "Meals" transactions between June 18, 2013 and July 31, 2019, except those whose last transaction occurred before Jan. 1, 2015." 2. The Plaintiffs Max Story and Nancy Murrey-Settle are preliminarily appointed as Class Representatives. 3. The Court preliminarily appoints the following counsel to serve as Class Counsel: Jason L. Lichtman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Janet Varnell and Brian Warwick of Varnell & Warwick, P.A., and Lisa R. Consodine and David J. DiSabato of Siri & Glimstad LLP. 4. Class Counsel may file any motion seeking an award of Attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, no later than July 24, 2025. 5. All papers in support of the final approval of the proposed Settlement, and in response to any objections, shall be filed no later than September 8, 2025 6. The Fairness Hearing shall be held before the Court on Sept. 25, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. Heartland is a U.S.-based payment processing and technology provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m6deOC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. Sarah D. Zandi, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com szandi@lchb.com The Defendant is represented by: Peter Starr, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30303 E-mail: pstarr@kslaw.com HENRY MAYO: Court Stays McNabb FLSA Suit Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants the Plaintiff's application to stay the proceedings pending arbitration in the lawsuit titled Katina McNabb v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, Case No. 2:25-cv-01833-MAR (C.D. Cal.). On March 3, 2025, Plaintiff Katina McNabb instigated this action against Defendant Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, and California Business and Professions Code. She asserted her claims as a putative class action. From March 12, 2025, to April 17, 2025, counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant met and conferred over email regarding the potential that an arbitration agreement would require the Plaintiff to submit to mandatory arbitration. On April 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an application to stay the entire case pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Believing that the parties had reached an agreement over email, the Plaintiff represented that the application was unopposed. However, the Defendant filed an opposition on April 21, 2025, asking the Court to stay only the individual claims and dismiss the Plaintiff's putative class-based claims, or at least deny her request to stay so that the Defendant could file a motion to dismiss or motion to strike before staying the case. The Plaintiff filed a reply on April 30, 2025, reiterating the position that the entire action should be stayed. Judge Rocconi notes that both parties agree that the Plaintiff's individual claims are subject to arbitration. The parties also appear to agree that the Plaintiff's putative class-wide claims are not subject to arbitration. The parties only dispute what the Court should do with the non-arbitrable claims. Given that the Defendant has not yet appeared in this action or responded to the Complaint with a motion under Rule 12, the Court will not address their request to dismiss certain claims or strike certain allegations in this order. Instead, the Court will only address the limited question of whether the non-arbitrable claims should be stayed along with the arbitrable claims, with the knowledge that if the Court allowed the non-arbitrable claims to proceed in this Court, the Defendant would likely file a motion to dismiss or motion to strike. The Court finds that a stay of the entire action is warranted here. First, considerations of economy and efficiency weigh heavily in favor of staying the entire case. The Plaintiff notes, and the Defendant does not dispute, that if the arbitration on the Plaintiff's individual claims is successful, the individual claims in this action would be rendered moot, and the putative class-wide claims would be subject to dismissal. Conversely, Judge Rocconi opines, if the non-arbitrable claims are not stayed, the parties will at least have to litigate a motion to dismiss or motion to strike, which might otherwise be rendered wholly moot by the arbitration. Importantly, the Defendant has not identified any actual harm they would suffer from the stay. The only potential source of prejudice that the Defendant cites is that the statute of limitations on the Plaintiff's putative class-wide claims would pause during the pendency of arbitration. However, Judge Rocconi points out, the Defendant's argument contradicts their purported justification for the dismissal of the class-action claims and actually supports the argument that there is more risk of prejudice to the Plaintiff if the claims were not stayed. The only scenario in which the statute of limitations on the Plaintiff's class-wide claims would be relevant is if any of claims would otherwise be viable, which the Defendant argues is not possible due to a waiver clause in the contract. In any case, Judge Rocconi maintains, setting the waiver clause aside to assume that the statute of limitations becomes relevant, the Defendant is essentially arguing that they would be prejudiced by losing an opportunity to make a statute of limitations argument where the Plaintiff actually did originally bring the lawsuit within the statute of limitations. The Court does not find this argument persuasive. Tolling statutes and doctrines are intended to work precisely in this way to preserve a litigant's right to bring their claims--the Defendant is not prejudiced by their normal functioning. Judge Rocconi finds that the cited cases do not support the Defendant's argument that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiff's class claims at this juncture. The cases the Defendant cites were in a different procedural posture--where the defendant had filed a motion to compel arbitration, in which defendant argued that the class claims should be dismissed. Even assuming the Court has discretion to dismiss the Plaintiff's non-arbitrable claims, the Court finds that the claims should be stayed. Ultimately, as the Plaintiff concludes, and the Defendant does not dispute, there is a nonzero chance that this litigation returns to this Court as a result of the Defendant's default or other arbitration misconduct. Whether or not the Plaintiff's putative class action claims are ultimately dismissed, Judge Rocconi holds that a stay of the entire action is the best way to preserve all parties' rights while also serving important interests of judicial economy and efficiency. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's application to stay the proceedings pending arbitration. The hearing set for May 14, 2025, was vacated, and the Defendant's request to appear remotely is denied as moot. The Plaintiff is ordered to submit her individual claims to binding arbitration pursuant to the signed arbitration agreement within sixty days of this order. The case in this Court is stayed pending completion of arbitration. The parties will file a joint status report every sixty days from the date of this order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/pfffnvdv from PacerMonitor.com. HOLY ROSARY: Silvey EFTA Suit Removed to D. New Hampshire --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MELISSA SILVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOLY ROSARY CREDIT UNION, Case No. 219-2025-CV-00223, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of New Hampshire, Strafford County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire on May 28, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Hampshire assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00201 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant for violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and a New Hampshire common law claim for unjust enrichment. Holy Rosary Credit Union is a financial cooperative located in New Hampshire. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tara E. Lynch, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 409 Elm Street, Suite 4 Manchester, NH 03101 Telephone: (857) 504-2022 Email: tlynch@grsm.com - and - Scott R. Sinson, Esq. Jennifer N. Abdo, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 1 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 261-9466 Facsimile: (312) 565-6511 Email: ssinson@grsm.com jabdo@grsm.com HOMETOWN AMERICA: Bartok Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN BARTOK, et al., v. HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-10790-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting instant motion and order the following relief: (1) certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class of persons who are paying or will pay home-site rent to the Oak Point Manufactured Housing Community located in Middleborough, Massachusetts ("Oak Point Rent-Payer Class"), appoint Ms. Lee and the MFM as the representatives of the Oak Point Rent-Payer Class and designate the undersigned as counsel for the Oak Point Rent- Payer Class; (2) appoint Atticus Administration, LLC as the administrator designated to provide notice of the instant action to the Oak Point Rent-Payer Class and order Atticus to send via United States Postal Service first-class mail the notice submitted herewith as Exhibit 8 -- or a substantially similar version thereof -- to each Oak Point home site within 60 days of the date of the Court's certification order; and (3) make any further orders as the Court deems necessary and Proper. Hometown provides real estate management services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=moeGH2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ethan R. Horowitz, Esq. NORTHEAST JUSTICE CENTER 50 Island Street, Suite 203B Lawrence, MA 01840 Telephone: (978) 888-0624 E-mail: ehorowitz@njc-ma.org HRM RESOURCES: Must File McCormick Class Cert Response by June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCormick, et al., v. HRM Resources, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00823 (D. Colo., Filed March 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to certify class. The HRM Defendants and Defendant John Hoffman are granted to and including June 30, 2025, to file their responses to the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion. The Plaintiffs' reply will be due by July 28, 2025. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land. HRM explores and produces oil and gas.[CC] HRM RESOURCES: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY McCORMICK; RONALD McCORMICK; and, TRUPP LAND MANAGEMENT LLC, v. HRM RESOURCES, LLC, HRM RESOURCES II, LLC, HRM RESOURCES III, LLC, HRM RESOURCES IV, LLC, L. ROGER HUTSON, TERRY PAPE, PAINTED PEGASUS PETROLEUM, LLC, and JOHN HOFFMAN, Case No. 1:24-cv-00823-CNS-CYC (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the time, up to and including June 30, 2025, for the HRM Defendants and Defendant John Hoffman to file their responses to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion, and an extension up to and including July 28, 2025 for the Plaintiffs' reply. The HRM Defendants believe the Plaintiffs' class certification motion raises arguments related to class certification that require significant research, analysis, and additional factual and expert discovery to respond to. To allow counsel for the Plaintiffs sufficient time to conduct supplemental discovery in response to the Defendants' opposition briefs and to prepare their Reply, this Motion requests that the Plaintiffs be allowed a 14 day extension of time. No party will be prejudiced by the requested relief. Pursuant to D.COLO.LCivR 6.1(c), a copy of this motion is being served contemporaneously upon plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion on May 9, 2025. HRM explores and produces oil and gas. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9bWto2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Setareh Homayoni, Esq. John S. Rossiter Jr., Esq. Camille Sippel, Esq. Benjamin Segal, Esq. CLIENTEARTH USA, INC. 501 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 510 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 361-7007 E-mail: shomayoni@clientearth.org jrossiter@clientearth.org csippel@clientearth.org bsegal@clientearth.org The Defendants are represented by: Richard B. Benenson, Esq. Justin L. Cohen, Esq. Matthew C. Arentsen, Esq. Max Porteus, Esq. Madeleine L. Tayer, Esq. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 675 15th Street, Suite 2900 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 223-1100 Facsimile: (303) 223-1111 E-mail: marentsen@bhfs.com jcohen@bhfs.com mporteus@bhfs.com mtayer@bhfs.com - and - John Hoffman, Esq. 3201 Bayshore Drive La Porte, TX 77571 Telephone: (713) 962-0708 E-mail: johnghoffman@icloud.com INCORPORATED VILLAGE: Ortiz Suit Seeks ADA Supervised Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADIA HOLUBNYCZYJ-ORTIZ, individually, AND ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF FLORAL PARK, FLORAL PARK BUILDING DEPARTMENT, FLORAL PARK RECREATION CENTER, FLORAL PARK VILLAGE BOARD, KEVIN M. FITZGERALD, in his capacity as Mayor, and GERARD M. BAMBRICK, in his capacity as the Floral Park Village Administrator, Case No. 2:24-cv-07828-SJB-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court permitting Court supervised notification to putative class members pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Floral is an incorporated village in Nassau County, Long Island, New York. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EAcF09 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A. Tand, Esq. THE BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 E-mail: jtand@belllg.com INT'L BROTHERHOOD: Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMSA NEAL MULLINS, et al., v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03939-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to certify for an interlocutory appeal. The Court further stays proceedings in this case pending a decision from the Ninth Circuit as to whether it will accept the case for an interlocutory appeal. The parties are ordered to file a status report within one week after the Ninth Circuit issues its decision on whether to accept the interlocutory appeal. The Court therefore concludes that certification of an interlocutory appeal is appropriate. It acknowledges, however, that Plaintiffs are correct that section 1292(b) provides for an interlocutory appeal of "an order," and not, e.g., an issue within that order. 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b). The Plaintiffs have technically asserted not just individual claims but also class claims (including on the RLA statutory due process claim) and no class certification proceeding has taken place yet. International is a labor union in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q2l410 at no extra charge.[CC] J. DOERER: Kile's Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF KILE, v. J. DOERER, Case No. 1:24-cv-01177-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order adopting findings and recommendations and denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on Feb. 25, 2025, are adopted in full; and 2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed on Feb. 20, 2025 is denied. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. On Feb. 25, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. The Plaintiff untimely filed objections on March 28, 2025. In his objections, the plaintiff argues that the Court should appoint an attorney under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(1) to enable him to certify a class. The decision to appoint such counsel is within "the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances." The Plaintiff does not meet the exceptional circumstances. As the plaintiff's complaint has not yet been screened, the Court cannot make a determination that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y8nsJ6 at no extra charge.[CC] JLE INDUSTRIES: Class Settlement in Martin Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants final approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit captioned RICK MARTIN, and individually on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JLE INDUSTRIES, LLC, JLE EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC, and EVAN POHASKI, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00326-MPK (W.D. Pa.). The matter has come before the Court by way of the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval, and for certification of a settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and the Parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release. The Court previously certified, for settlement purposes only, a class of all individuals who, at any time between March 14, 2021, and the date of preliminary approval by the Court, worked as independent contractor truck drivers for JLE Industries, LLC, JLE Equipment Leasing, LLC or their affiliates and/or worked pursuant to independent contractor truck driver agreements with JLE Industries, LLC, JLE Equipment Leasing, LLC or their affiliates and/or were parties to equipment leases with JLE Industries, LLC, JLE Equipment Leasing, LLC or their affiliates (the "Settlement Class"). The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that the settlement reached by the Parties satisfies the applicable requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P 23 and grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement "Effective Date" as referenced in the Settlement Agreement and in this Order will be the date on which this Order approving the Settlement becomes final and non-appealable, and that date will be 30 days from the entry of this Order, provided that no appeals are filed. The Court finds that no Settlement Class Members have objected to the Settlement, and no Settlement Class Members have filed exclusion requests from the Settlement. The Court makes final its earlier certification of the proposed Settlement Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Provided that no appeal is filed from this Order, the settlement funds will be paid to the Plaintiff's Counsel in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 3(a) of the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff's Counsel will provide an IRS form W9 for Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., and Plaintiff Rick Martin to the Defendants. The settlement funds will be distributed by the Plaintiff's counsel in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Southwestern Pennsylvania Legal Services is approved as a cy pres beneficiary. The Court approves a service award in the amount of $2,500 to Plaintiff Rick Martin. The Court approves an award of attorneys' fees and costs totaling $279,000 to the Plaintiff's Counsel, in recognition of their continued hard work over the lifetime of this case and the result achieved on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Court dismisses this action in its entirety with prejudice, with each party to bear its own fees and costs. Nothing in this Order constitutes a finding of liability as to any Released Party, and none of the Class Members are considered prevailing parties in this Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/53u8cwtv from PacerMonitor.com. JPMORGAN CHASE: Palladino Can't File 2nd Amended Suit, Court Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Margo K. Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denies the Plaintiffs' request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in the lawsuit styled JOHN PALLADINO, GARIB KARAPETYAN, STEVE PALLADINO, and JOHN NYPL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, BANK OF AMERICA N.A., WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., CITIGROUP INC., CITIBANK N.A., CITIBANK N.A. (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION), U.S. BANCORP, US BANCORP, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., PNC, PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, CAPITAL ONE F.S.B., CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, BANK OF THE WEST, VISA INC., VISA U.S.A. INC., VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION, MASTERCARD INCORPORATED, and MASTERCARD, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01215-MKB-JAM (E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs John Palladino, Garib Karepetyan, Steve Palladino, and John Nypl commenced the putative class action on Dec. 30, 2022, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, against Defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Inc., and Visa International Service Association (together, "Visa") and MasterCard International Incorporated ("Mastercard"), as well as Visa and Mastercard's member banks, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (together, "Chase"); Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, National Association, and Bank of America, N.A. (together, "Bank of America"); Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (together, "Wells Fargo"); Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (National Association) (together, "Citi"); U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association (together, "U.S. Bank"); PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., PNC, and PNC Bank National Association (together, "PNC"); Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, F.S.B., Capital One Bank (USA) National Association, and Capital One National Association (together, "Capital One"); and BMO Harris Bank N.A., successor-in-interest to Bank of the West ("Bank of the West"). On Dec. 30, 2022, the Plaintiffs, who are California citizens and Visa or Mastercard cardholders, commenced this action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California. The Defendants removed the action to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California, and then transferred the action to this Court for consolidation with In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. On Jan. 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants violated California's Cartwright Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, and all the retail merchants, who accept Visa or Mastercard payment cards, conspired to fix the price of the interchange fees charged when a consumer uses a Visa or Mastercard to purchase a retail good or service, which harmed competition and resulted in increased retail prices. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, disgorgement, and injunctive relief. On Feb. 9, 2024, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration; all Defendants other than Visa moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Visa moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and PNC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On Dec. 30, 2024, the Court (1) denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; (2) granted PNC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; (3) denied the Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery; and (4) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "December 2024 Decision"). The Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of the Court's December 2024 Decision pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6.31 and request leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and the Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion and request. For the reasons explained in this Memorandum & Order, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and denies the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration because the Plaintiffs do not identify any facts or controlling law that the Court overlooked in the December 2024 Decision. The cases the Plaintiffs cite in support of their argument that the Court overlooked the "target exception" to the market participation rule also only discuss that exception in the context of the federal antitrust laws, citing Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465, 483–84 (1982). The Court, therefore, rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that it "overlooked" the applicability of the Blue Shield exception to the Plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim. In their request for leave to amend complaint, the Plaintiffs argue that the Court should grant their request pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs argue, among other things, that absent prejudice to the Defendants, the Plaintiffs should be allowed full opportunity to correct or amend their pleading so that the facts alleged are clearly before the Court in the manner intended by the party submitting the allegations. The Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend because amendment would be futile. As the Plaintiffs recognize, the Court dismissed their Amended Complaint because they do not allege cardholder participation in the market where the anticompetitive conduct occurs. The Proposed Second Amended Complaint seeks to allege additional facts that (1) the Plaintiffs participate in the "two-sided transaction platform market," which is the market where antitrust injury occurs; (2) merchants participate in the alleged conspiracy; and (3) cardholders pay inflated prices as a result of the alleged conspiracy between banks, networks, and merchants. Judge Brodie points out that the Plaintiffs' remaining proposed amendments fail to sufficiently allege they participate in the relevant market. The Plaintiffs' additional allegations about their participation in the relevant market are conclusory, and do not alter the transaction structure that the Court analyzed in the December 2024 Decision, Judge Brodie opines. The Plaintiffs' proposed amendments fail to sufficiently allege participation in the market where anticompetitive conduct occurs and the Court, accordingly, denies leave to amend because it would be futile. For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and denies the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3h2273k4 from PacerMonitor.com. JUMPP LOGISTICS: Cervenka Seeks to Delay Collective Members Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN CERVENKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JUMPP LOGISTICS, LLC and COUCH GOAT QUANDRY, LLC Case No. 4:21-cv-00813-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order equitably tolling the statute of limitations for the putative collective members in the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request this Court to equitably toll the statute of limitations due to the extraordinary delay in ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion—a delay of nearly three years constitutes an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on May 31, 2022. Jumpp is a courier and logistics company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DveDhR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com - and – Jerry Murad, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JERRY MURAD Fort Worth, TX 76147 Telephone: (817) 335-5691 Facsimile: (817) 870-1162 E-mail: jerrymurad@mac.com KALARIS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Final OK of Securities Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Kalaris Therapeutics, 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 approval of the settlement in the securities class suit pending in the District of Massachusetts. On January 19, 2024, a purported stockholder of AlloVir filed a lawsuit, captioned Zerbato v. AlloVir, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-10152 (D. Mass.) (the "Securities Class Action"), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against AlloVir and two of its officers purportedly on behalf of a putative class of stockholders. On April 16, 2024, the Court appointed stockholders Harry Levin and Julio Maurice Bueno as lead plaintiffs and their counsel as lead counsel in the action. On June 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. In the amended complaint, lead plaintiffs assert claims purportedly on behalf of a putative class of stockholders consisting of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired AlloVir securities between January 11, 2023 and December 21, 2023, inclusive. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the related regulations, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions to investors relating to AlloVir's three Phase 3 studies of posoleucel. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 16, 2024 and oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on February 19, 2025. On April 14, 2025, the parties executed a definitive stipulation and agreement of settlement resolving the claims in the Securities Class Action for $1.0 million, subject to Court approval. On April 17, 2025, the plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of the settlement and authorized providing notice of the settlement to class members. On April 23, 2025, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled to take place on July 30, 2025. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Plaintiffs' Support Reply Due July 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUBHASH PATEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. AND FRANS VAN HOUTEN, Case No. 1:21-cv-04606-ERK-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marcia M. Henry entered an order that: (1) the due date for the Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion shall be July 15, 2025, and shall not exceed 5,500 words; and (2) the Defendants may submit a sur-reply in further opposition to the Motion by Aug. 15, 2025, and the sur- reply shall not exceed 1,500 words. On Dec. 5, 2024, the Court approved the parties' proposed discovery plan and scheduling order which, among other things, sets forth deadlines for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, including a reply due on June 30, 2025. On Feb. 28, 2025, the Plaintiffs served their Motion papers on the Defendants, and on April 29, 2025, the Defendants served their opposition papers. Koninklijke is a Dutch multinational health technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uImrbM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Emma Gilmore, Esq. Villi Shteyn, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com egilmore@pomlaw.com vshteyn@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com The Defendants are represented by: William B. Monahan, Esq. Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. Thomas C. White, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 KRISTI NOEM: Bid for Relief to Vacate Sched Conference Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED FARM WORKERS, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, et al. Case No. 1:25-cv-00246-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for administrative relief to vacate scheduling conference: The parties are reminded of their obligation to file a joint scheduling conference statement in compliance with the procedures set forth in the order setting mandatory scheduling conference in advance of the scheduling conference set for July 8, 2025, at 10:00 AM. In short, because the Plaintiffs' complaint advances claims that are not entirely amenable to "review on an administrative record," this action is not exempt from the initial disclosure and the discovery scheduling meet/confer requirements under Rule 26. The Plaintiffs initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on Feb. 26, 2025, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to detentive stops and arrests by Border Patrol. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A5uGA3 at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Bid to Stay Administrative Action Gets Partial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SVITLANA DOE, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; PETE R. FLORES, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; KIKA SCOTT, in her official capacity as the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Case No. 1:25-cv-10495-IT (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order granting partial relief on the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and stay of administrative action: The Jan. 23, 2025 email from former Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Jennifer B. Higgins is stayed pending further court order, insofar as it suspends adjudications of re-parole applications filed by individuals who received parole pursuant to the programs specified in that email and insofar as it suspends adjudications of applications for non-parole benefits filed by individuals who received parole pursuant to those same programs. Any actions by the Defendants suspending adjudications of initial parole and re-parole applications filed by individuals who are seeking or who have received parole pursuant to the Military Parole in Place (MPIP) program, as well as applications for other immigration benefits filed by individuals paroled through that program, are stayed pending further court order. The lawsuit primarily challenges actions by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") regarding non-citizens who entered the United States lawfully, have not been accused of engaging in any criminal conduct, whether in the United States or elsewhere, and have sought to avail themselves of legal pathways for remaining in the United States. The court considers a "Re-Parole Subclass" consisting of: "All individuals who have received humanitarian parole through already established humanitarian parole processes that provide for re-parole, [42] such as the U4U, OAW, FRP, MPIP, and CAM parole processes, with any pending applications for re-parole, except: (1) those individuals who voluntarily left, and remain outside, the United States prior to the issuance of the relevant agency action; and (2) those individuals who choose to opt out of the class in order to seek relief in separate litigation." The court's Order Granting Class Certification [Doc. No. 98] addressed only the first of these subclasses, certifying a class consisting of: "All individuals who have received a grant of parole that is subject to the Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025), rescinding individual grants of parole on a categorical and en masse basis, except: (1) those individuals who voluntarily left, and remain outside, the United States prior to the issuance of that Notice; and (2) those individuals who choose to opt out of the class in order to seek relief in separate litigation." The court also considers an “Other Immigration Benefits Subclass” consisting of: "All individuals who have received humanitarian parole through already established humanitarian parole processes and have a pending application for any additional immigration benefit (besides re-parole), except: (1) those individuals who voluntarily left, and remain outside, the United States prior to the issuance of the relevant agency action; and (2) those individuals who choose to opt out of the class in order to seek relief in separate litigation." A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ctWgoM at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Court Modifies Order Granting Class Status ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SVITLANA DOE, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10495-IT (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an amended order granting class certification. The court modifies its prior Order Granting Class Certification and certifies a class of: "All individuals who have received a grant of parole that is subject to the Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025), rescinding individual grants of parole on a categorical and en masse basis"; "All individuals who have received humanitarian parole through already established humanitarian parole processes that provide for re-parole, such as the U4U, OAW, FRP, MPIP, and CAM parole processes, with any pending applications for re-parole"; "All individuals who have received humanitarian parole through already established humanitarian parole processes and have a pending application for any additional immigration benefit (besides re-parole)"; and "All individuals who have a pending application to support any family member for initial parole through the Military Parole in Place program; except: (1) those individuals who, or whose family member, voluntarily left, and remain outside, the United States prior to the issuance of the relevant Agency action; and (2) those individuals who choose to opt out of the class in order to seek relief in separate litigation." The court appoints Armando Doe, Ana Doe, Carlos Doe, Andrea Doe, Lucia Doe, Miguel Doe, Daniel Doe, Svitlana Doe, Maksym Doe, Maria Doe, Alexandra Doe, Teresa Doe, Adolfo Gonzales, Jr., Marim Doe, and Omar Doe as Class Representatives1 and John A. Freedman, Daniel B. Asimow, and Laura Scott Shores of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Karen C. Tumlin of Justice Action Center, and Anwen Hughes of Human Rights First as class counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hgZh27 at no extra charge.[CC] LAUNCH PAD: S.D. New York Wants Discovery on Bid to Toss Hoar Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Decision and Order directing jurisdictional discovery relating to the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned TIMOTHY HOAR, THOMAS SIMMONS, and TIMOTHY ARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAUNCH PAD PAYMENT SERVICES CORPORATION and HOTMART BV, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06195-CM (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs Timothy Hoar, Thomas Simmons, and Timothy Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, commenced this purported-class action against Defendants Launch Pad Payments Services Corporation and Hotmart BV (collectively as "Defendant" or "Hotmart") for violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sections 349 and 350, the Electronic Funds Act, unjust enrichment, conversion, fraud, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). Plaintiff Timothy Hoar is a citizen and resident of Winlock, Washington. Plaintiff Timothy Arias is a citizen and resident of Sacramento, California. Plaintiff Thomas Simmons is a citizen and resident of Brooklyn, New York. Defendant Launch Pad Payment Services is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business and headquarters in New York City, New York. Defendant Hotmart BV is a Dutch company with its headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Hotmart is an online platform, on which users, called "Creators," can list and sell digital products and services, including e-books, online courses, video lessons, and more. Consumers who might be interested in products made by the Creators receive advertisements from Hotmart's platform on various social media websites. Launch Pad Payment Services is a platform used by Hotmart to process transactions between Creators and Consumers both of whom/which are located in the United States. Judge McMahon notes that the Complaint does not explain what if any corporate relationship exists between Hotmart BV and Launch Pad. Due to an unfortunate tendency of the Plaintiffs to lump the two corporations together under the rubric "Hotmart," Judge McMahon says it is difficult to understand what allegations are or might be made against Launch Pad independent of those against Hotmart. In this opinion, "Hotmart" refers only to the Dutch corporation; and references to Launch Pad or its activities will be identified as such, Judge McMahon explains. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that the Plaintiffs have filed the Amended Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in violation of the forum selection clause that was included in the Terms of Use. The Plaintiffs insist that they can sue in New York for two reasons: first, because they never agreed to the General Terms of Use or the forum selection clause contained therein; second, because the claims relate to "specific transactions" that were, at least arguably, processed by Launch Pad, which means they must be heard in this district. Judge McMahon writes, "It is clear enough that most, if not all, of the Complaint would survive a motion to dismiss. However, first we must decide whether the case as against the principal Defendant -- Hotmart -- is appropriately brought in this district. Because discovery is needed to answer that question, I deny the pending motion without prejudice to renewal on a fuller record, and I give the parties 45 days to take the needed discovery and report the results to the Court." Judge McMahon finds that the Plaintiffs' claims are subject to the forum selection clause. Judge McMahon opines that (a) Hotmart's General Terms of Use's forum selection clause is mandatory; (b) the forum selection clause was reasonably communicated to the Plaintiffs; (c) the forum selection clause applies to the Plaintiffs and their claims; and (d) it would not be unreasonable to enforce the forum selection clause against the Plaintiffs. Judge McMahon holds that jurisdictional discovery will reveal the location of the correct forum. Judge McMahon points out that under the Terms of Use, properly construed, Hotmart B.V., the Netherlands corporation, has agreed to be sued concerning the validity or bona tides of a specific transaction in the forum in which a transaction effected over its platform was processed -- whether that forum be Brazil, the United States, or The Netherlands. Should it prove that all of the Plaintiffs' allegedly unauthorized transactions were processed by Launch Pad, then, both Hotmart and Launch Pad can be sued over those transactions in this Court. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows. The motion is denied without prejudice and should be removed from the Court's list of open motions. Jurisdictional discovery must be completed June 26, 2025. At that point, the Defendants are free to renew their motion; they need only to file a new notice of motion and a supplemental brief addressing whatever arguments can be made following jurisdictional discovery. The other arguments made in support of the motion at Dkt. No. 43 will be deemed automatically renewed; there is no need to refile those briefs. Those arguments will be addressed on the basis of the existing briefs if this Court is the proper place for doing so. There should be no need for any extension of the 45-day deadline; the discovery the Court has ordered is quite limited and targeted to the open issue. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4n5uremv from PacerMonitor.com. LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Wilding Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILDING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02958-SDG (N.D. Ga., May 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and violations of Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) and Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on December 25, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. is a risk and data management firm based in Alpharetta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP 4279 Roswell Road, NE Suite 201-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678)-642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due June 5, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE-1, et al. v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04566-HB (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III entered an order that: (1) All discovery, focusing on class action certification, shall proceed forthwith and continue in such as manner as will assure that all requests for, and responses to, discovery will be served, noticed and completed by May 22, 2026; (2) The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification along with supporting brief on or before June 5, 2026; (3) The Defendants shall file any responsive brief on or before June 26, 2026; and (4) The Plaintiffs shall file any reply brief on or before July 10, 2026. LexisNexis is a data analytics company that provides data and technology services to various industries. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R4jdKi at no extra charge.[CC] LOANUNITED.COM LLC: Huff Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDI HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOANUNITED.COM, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00343-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion for conditionally certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and approving the notice and procedures. The Defendant's mortgage underwriters all performed identical or nearly identical work in verifying loan application information so that LoanUnited could make a decision on accepting or rejecting the application. Despite the fact that these mortgage underwriters do not qualify for any exemption under the FLSA, LoanUnited uniformly paid them a salary, misclassified them as FLSA-exempt, and denied them overtime pay. This practice flagrantly violates the FLSA. Huff seeks to allow her coworkers—other salaried mortgage underwriters subject to LoanUnited's illegal pay practice—to receive notice of this collective action and stop the statute of limitations from running on their valuable back wage claims. Huff's evidence meets and surpasses the Eleventh Circuit's lenient standard for conditional certification, and the court should certify this collective and order notice to potential collective members LoanUnited.com is a mortgage company that provides FHA, VA, and conventional loans, home purchase, home refinance, and lending services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FEEaRG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. Justin Vineyard, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law justin@parmet.law - and - Jeremy Stephens, Esq. Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 Facsimile: (470) 639-6866 E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com AFrisch@forthepeople.com LOUISIANA: Appeals TRO Ruling in Voice Class Suit to 5th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' application for a second temporary restraining order (TRO) in the lawsuit entitled Voice of the Experienced, a membership organization on behalf of itself and its members, et al., Plaintiffs, v. James M. LeBlanc, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09620-AH-PVC, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. This action challenges the unconstitutional and gratuitously harsh conditions of forced agricultural labor at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) in Tunica, Louisiana. On Mar. 26, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which Judge Brian A. Jackson granted on May 23, 2025. The Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction will be addressed separately. The Defendants shall issue a "Heat Alert" on the Farm Line at LSP whenever the heat index meets or exceeds 88 degrees Fahrenheit. The Defendants shall monitor the heat index on the Farm Line at LSP every 30 minutes. The appellate case is captioned Voice of the Experienced v. LeBlanc, Case No. 25-30322, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED, a membership organization on behalf of itself and its members, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lydia Wright, Esq. RIGHTS BEHIND BARS 1800 M Street, N.W., FNT 1 Washington, DC 20033 Telephone: (202) 455-4399 Defendants-Appellants JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al. are represented by: Andrew Blanchfield, Esq. KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LIMITED 701 Main Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order in Gabourel ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PASSION GABOUREL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. d/b/a LENSCRAFTERS, an Ohio corporation; LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00471-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting ex parte application to modify scheduling order, or, in the alternative, strike the declarations of Laura R. Steiner and Edgar Velasco: Luxottica is a North American subsidiary of the Italian eyewear giant, Luxottica, and is now part of EssilorLuxottica. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RATTrr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kayvon Sabourian, Esq. MATTERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 431-1900 E-mail: KSabourian@maternlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Khatereh Sage Fahimi, Esq. Noah J. Woods, Esq. Heidi E. Hegewald, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: sfahimi@littler.com nwoods@littler.com hhegewald@littler.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Extended ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Kathryn A. Starnella entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed expedited motion for extension of time. The deadline for the Defendant to file its response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended to May 30, 2025. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a reply is extended to June 27, 2025. Marriott is a hospitality service provider that operates hotels and restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZYvVgS at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 1871: Bid to Certify Class in Liability Suit Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:07-md-01871-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is granted in part and denied in part as follows: the TPP Class is certified for purchases between Jan. 1, 2005, until Aug. 14, 2007. 2. Thomas M. Sobol and Erin C. Burns of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and James R. Dugan II of the Dugan Law Firm are appointed as class counsel. 3. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion setting forth the proposed notice plan and appointment of administrator for which they seek approval on or before June 6, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IhOGbU at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2873: Adams Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03571-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. The Adams case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: AFFF Products "Defective," McAuslan Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD MCAUSLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03578-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The McAuslan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Wilder Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC WILDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03587-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer. The Wilder case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Debate Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- DARRELL DEBATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03589-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease. The Debate case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Quillin, Esq. O'LEARY, SHELTON, CORRIGAN, PETERSON, DALTON, & QUILLIN, LLC 1034 S. Brentwood Blvd., 23rd Fl. St. Louis, MO 63117 Telephone: (314) 405-9000 Facsimile: (314) 405-9999 Email: quillin@osclaw.com MDL 2873: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Burnfield Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BURNFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03573-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The Burnfield case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Faces Benz Suit Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES BENZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03572-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer. The Benz case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Faces Evans Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03574-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Evans case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Faces McGuire Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLEVELAND MCGUIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03580-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The McGuire case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Faces Moszee Suit Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- COURTNEY MOSZEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03582-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and thyroid disease. The Moszee case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03575-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. The Johnson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Kanenwisher Sues Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD KANENWISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03576-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The Kanenwisher case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Longley Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN LONGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03577-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. The Longley case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Neynaber Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE NEYNABER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03583-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer. The Neynaber case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Packan Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID PACKAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03584-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer. The Packan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Scheurich Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE SCHEURICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03585-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The Scheurich case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Wolvington Sues Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID WOLVINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03588-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and ulcerative colitis. The Wolvington case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 3126: Approval Hearing in Data Breach Suit Amended to Oct. 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:24-md-03126 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an amended order 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 the 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 Oct. 23, 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=IaHlsQ at no extra charge.[CC] MEDSTAR HEALTH: Stimac Sues Over Denied Raises to Staff on Leave ---------------------------------------------------------------- THY MA STIMAC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDSTAR HEALTH INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01693 (D. Md., May 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and for unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of denying annual raises to employees who happen to be out on maternity leave, disability leave, and other medical leave, even though the employees would otherwise be entitled to those raises if they were not out on leave. By withholding raises from employees who are out on FMLA leave solely because they are out on FMLA leave, MedStar interferes with the exercise of its employees' rights under the FMLA. MedStar is thus liable for unpaid wages, interest on those wages, and an additional amount as liquidated damages. MedStar Health Inc. is a healthcare services provider doing business in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Farra, Esq. Times Wang, Esq. FARRA & WANG PLLC 1300 I Street N.W., Suite 400E Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 505-5990 Email: afarra@farrawang.com twang@farrawang.com - and - Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3080 Email: mdellangelo@bm.net mwallin@bm.net com - and - Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 666-4316 Email: mhussain@bm.net MILLENIUM GENERAL: Castro Files Labor Suit in Cal. State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Millenium General Maintenance LLC. The case is captioned as JOSE CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MILLENIUM GENERAL MAINTENANCE LLC, Case No. 25STCV12675 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged employment violation. Millenium General Maintenance LLC is a cleaning service provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com MORTON COUNTY, ND: Thunderhawk Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CISSY THUNDERHAWK; WASTE WIN YOUNG; REVEREND JOHN FLOBERG; and JOSE ZHAGÑAY on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated persons, v. COUNTY OF MORTON, NORTH DAKOTA; SHERIFF KYLE KIRCHMEIER; GOVERNOR DOUG BURGUM; FORMER GOVERNOR JACK DALRYMPLE; DIRECTOR GRANT LEVI; SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL GERHART JR; TIGERSWAN LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 1:18-cv-00212-DMT-ARS (D.N.D.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a seven-day extension of time to file their reply in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, Plaintiffs' reply would be otherwise due on May 23, 2025. If granted, this extension would set a new deadline of May 30, 2025. Several unanticipated personal and professional obligations have arisen for Plaintiffs counsel this week. The Plaintiffs have consulted with TigerSwan, which does not object to this request. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQa79a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Noah Smith-Drelich, Esq. Bernard E. Harcourt, Esq. Amy Knight, Esq. COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL 435 W. 116th St. New York, NY 10027 Telephone: (605) 863 0707 NEIMAN MARCUS: Approval Hearing in Gianne Suit Amended to Oct. 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gianne v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC et al (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00102 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an amended order 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." 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 Oct. 23, 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. Neiman is a luxury retail and real estate company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vyA8Md at no extra charge.[CC] NEIMAN MARCUS: Approval Hearing in Pelosi Amended to Oct. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PELOSI v. THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP LLC (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00168 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an amended order 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." 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 Oct. 23, 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. Neiman is a luxury retail and real estate company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yRI8EY at no extra charge.[CC] NEIMAN MARCUS: Approval Hearing in Reichbart Amended to Oct. 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reichbart v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00154 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an amended order 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." 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 Oct. 23, 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. Neiman is a luxury retail and real estate company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wqKOPa at no extra charge.[CC] NELNET INC: Faces Zocco Suit Over Disclosed Clients' Info to Google ------------------------------------------------------------------- PETER ZOCCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NELNET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-04470 (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and invasion of privacy under California's Constitution. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of disclosing sensitive and confidential information related to consumers' student loan debts to Google LLC without prior consent. The Defendant provides financial services to consumers through its website, nelnet.studentaid.gov, where Nelnet account holders can manage their student loans and select payment plans. When consumers provide this information and navigate their private financial accounts, they expect that their confidential information and activity will be protected and not disclosed to unknown third parties. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers, however, the Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables Google Analytics to eavesdrop on those confidential communications using their respective wiretaps. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Nelnet, Inc. is a financial services provider, with its principal place of business in Lincoln, Nebraska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: sbeck@bursor.com NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Certification Due July 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Horti, et al., v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. (RE: NESTLE BOOST NUTRITIONAL DRINK LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-09812-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered a class certification briefing schedule as follows: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: July 25, 2025 Plaintiffs' Expert Reports: July 25, 2025 Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and Daubert Motion(s) (if any): Sept. 19, 2025 Defendant's Rebuttal Expert Reports: Sept. 19, 2025 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Cert.: Oct. 24, 2025 Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion(s) (if any): Oct. 24, 2025 Daubert Motion Oppositions: Nov. 12, 2025 Daubert Motion Replies: Nov. 27, 2025 Daubert/Class Cert. Hearing: Jan. 22, 2025 at 10 a.m. Nestle provides nutritional solutions for people with specific dietary needs related to illnesses, diseases, and, age. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ChPmTC at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Elisa Bid to Add Four New Plaintiffs OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISA W., et al., v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05273-JAV-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' request to add the four New Plaintiffs, substitute plaintiffs Alexandria R. and Emmanuel S. for their respective next friends, substitute Emmanuel S. as a next friend for Matthew V., and make other factual updates as outlined in the redline version of the PSAC is granted. 2. The Plaintiffs' request to add the following two common questions of law – (1) whether ACS exercises adequate oversight of the Contract Agencies, and (2) whether ACS's practices protect children from an increased risk of maltreatment – is denied. 3. The Plaintiffs' sealing motion is granted. The Plaintiff shall file the PSAC consistent with this Opinion and Order by Thursday June 5, 2025. Accordingly, the State Defendant has not established that granting the Plaintiffs leave to file the PSAC would be futile. The Plaintiffs, when they filed this action in 2015, were a class of 19 children in New York City's foster care system who have sued New York City's Administration for Children's Service and its overseeing agency, the New York State Offices of Children and Family Services, alleging widespread and systemic failures of the foster care system in New York City. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xwiczv at no extra charge.[CC] NORTHWELL HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Videotaping of Patients --------------------------------------------------------------- German Rubenstein LLP has filed a lawsuit against Northwell Health, Sports Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy and Rehabilitation Services of the North Shore, P.L.L.C. (STARS Rehabilitation), and an individual for alleged illegal and unauthorized videotaping of patients in bathrooms at the Northwell Health STARS Rehabilitation facility at Community Drive in Great Neck, New York. The lawsuit alleges that patients, staff, and visitors at STARS Rehabilitation were unknowingly videotaped or photographed on hidden cameras while in restrooms. This egregious breach not only represents a failure to uphold basic patient rights but also has deeply violated the trust patients place in healthcare providers to respect and protect their privacy. "This case highlights a shocking and invasive breach of trust," said Joel Rubenstein, attorney with German Rubenstein LLP. "Patients should never have to worry about their privacy being compromised while seeking medical care. We are committed to seeking justice for the victims of this violation." On May 22, 2025, Sports Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy and Rehabilitation Services of the North Shore notified certain patients of STARS Rehabilitation that, according to the District Attorney's Office, an individual secretly video recorded patients in the restroom of STARS Rehabilitation using a camera concealed in a fake smoke detector. The individual purchased the recording device that he eventually used at STARS Rehabilitation on August 2, 2022, and may have continued using such device until he was apprehended in April 2024. German Rubenstein LLP filed two prior lawsuits against Northwell in connection with these hidden bathroom cameras. Those cases are Brenda Pellettieri v. Northwell Health, Inc., et al., No. 529375/2024 (Kings County), October 30, 2024, and Jenna Tirado v. Northwell Health, Inc., et al., No. 510335/2025 (Kings County), March 27, 2025. German Rubenstein LLP is a leader in hidden camera and surreptitious viewing cases. Its advocacy has resulted in precedent-setting results for the victims of hidden bathroom cameras in the state of New York, including the April 2014 "peeping tom" case in Midtown's New York Design Center and the Northwell Health Sleep Disorders Facility Lawsuit. Individuals who worked at, received treatment at, or visited the STARS Rehabilitation Center or the Sleep Disorders Center in Great Neck through April 25, 2024, and who have concerns regarding their privacy may contact the firm for a confidential consultation. The firm aims to identify any additional affected patients and hold the responsible parties accountable for their actions. The lawsuit underscores the importance of privacy protections for all patients and serves as a reminder of the legal obligations medical institutions have to their patients. German Rubenstein LLP remains dedicated to advocating for those who have been affected by this serious invasion of privacy. The case is Jane Doe v. Northwell Health, Inc., et al., No. 517617/2025 (Kings County), May 29, 2025. For more information, please contact: German Rubenstein LLP 19 W. 44th Street, Suite 1500 New York, NY 10036 (646) 365-0346 (212) 704-2020 About German Rubenstein LLP With over $1 billion in verdicts and settlements, our founding partners, Steven German and Joel Rubenstein have over 40 years of experience representing victims of personal injury, medical negligence, environmental, toxic tort, civil rights, and consumer fraud in New York, New Jersey and throughout the U.S. The firm is dedicated to representing victims of civil rights violations and other serious injustices, advocating for accountability, transparency, and justice. Media Contact: Madeline Slezak Madeline.slezak@warschawski.com (484) 574-3528 [GN] ORLANDO HEALTH: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.W., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Orlando Health Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01068-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the joint unopposed motion and extending the class certification deadlines as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's Class Certification Expert Disclosure Deadline: Current deadline: July 15, 2025 Requested deadline: Sept. 15, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: Current deadline: July 15, 2025 Requested deadline: Oct. 1, 2025. 3. The Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and the Defendant's Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline: Current deadline: Aug. 12, 2025 Requested deadline: Nov. 3, 2025. 4. The Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification Deadline: Current deadline: Sept. 12, 2025 Requested deadline: Dec. 1, 2025. 5. All other Deadlines: Remain as Ordered in the Amended Scheduling Order. The case is a complex class action involving allegations that the Defendant disclosed the Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties without consent through the use of certain alleged technologies on the Defendant's website, www.orlandohealth.com. Orlando is a private, not-for-profit network of community and specialty hospitals based in Orlando, Florida. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BpUNFS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. Clint Watson, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com cwatson@thelyonfirm.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (954) 647-1866 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801-3432 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 E-mail: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Wins Summary Judgment v. Todd ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD M. NORTH, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC (PRA), Case No. 2:20-cv-20190-BRM-JSA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti entered an order granting PRA's motion for summary judgment. The Court further entered an order that North's motion for class certification is denied moot. Portfolio is a legitimate debt collection company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SFkJ9m at no extra charge.[CC] PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Bids to Dismiss Rose Class Suit Tossed as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE, ROBERT C. CHURCH, SR., NICOLE HENRY, EDWARD L. HARMON, WILLIAM BOHN, TONYA PERSINGER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, BRYAN STAFFORD, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of THOMAS FLEENOR, JR., JOHN CRABTREE, STEVEN MARTIN, GARY TOLER, ELGIE ADKINS, and SABRINA EAGLE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., PRIMECARE MEDICAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., THOMAS WEBER, BRETT BAVINGTON, TODD HESKINS, KRISTA VALLANDINGHAM, MELISSA JEFFERY, BRANDY EASTRIDGE, HELEN PERKINS, JESSICA MILLER, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., MARY STONE, DANIEL CONN, ELAINE GEDMAN, JOHN FROELICH, HUMAYAN RASHID, M.D., ANGELA NICHOLSON, MSN, APRN, FNP-C, AMBER DUNCAN, LISA MULLENS, LPN, CASSEY BOLEN, JOHN PENNINGTON, MA, LPC, NCC, NCSC, KENNADI SMITH, LPN, ASHLEY VALLANDINGHAM, LPN, BRITTANI MARSHALL, RN, ASHLEY STROUP, LPN, JOHN AND JANE DOE PRIMECARE AND WEXFORD EMPLOYEES, and TAYLOR BROOKS, Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order as follows: 1. That the PrimeCare Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are denied as moot insofar as the arguments therein were incorporated into and superseded by their subsequent motions for summary judgment; 2. That the parties' motions for summary judgment filed prior to the class certification denial are denied as moot in light of the Court's denial of class certification; 3. That the Plaintiffs' motion to seal materials subject to protective order is denied as moot; and 4. That the Plaintiffs' motion to seal exhibits to the plaintiffs' motion for award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement and costs and incentive payments, and the joint motion seeking approval of notice expert invoice, each of which pertain to the settlement reached between the Plaintiffs and the WVDCR Defendants, are denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. PrimeCare provides comprehensive correctional health care services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4iEMKQ at no extra charge.[CC] PROASSURANCE CORP: M&A Probes Merger With The Doctors Company ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- ProAssurance Corporation (NYSE: PRA), relating to the proposed merger with The Doctors Company. Under the terms of the agreement, ProAssurance stockholders will receive $25.00 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 24, 2025. Visit link for more: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/proassurance-corporation-pra/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AXL), relating to the proposed merger with Dowlais Group plc. Under the terms of the agreement, Dowlais shareholders will be entitled to receive, per share of Dowlais' common stock, 0.0863 shares of new AAM common stock, 42 pence per share in cash and up to a 2.8 pence of Dowlais FY24 final dividend prior to closing. Click here for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/american-axle-manufacturing-holdings-inc-axl/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- SpringWorks Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SWTX), relating to the proposed merger with Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Under the terms of the agreement, SpringWorks shareholders will have the right to receive $47.00 in cash per share of SpringWorks stock held. Visit link for more: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/springworks-therapeutics-inc-swtx/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Vigil Neuroscience, Inc. (NASDAQ: VIGL), relating to the proposed merger with French company, Sanofi. Under the terms of the agreement, Sanofi will acquire Vigil for an upfront payment of $8.00 per share of common stock in cash. Vigil shareholders will also receive a non-tradeable contingent value right entitling the holder to potentially receive an additional $2.00 per share in cash payable following the first commercial sale of VG-3927 if achieved within a specific period. The total equity value of the transaction, including the potential CVR payment, represents approximately $600 million on a fully diluted basis. Visit link for more: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/vigil-neuroscience-inc-vigl/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Knight May File Amended Class Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ERIK KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00203-JM (E.D. Ark.), Judge James M. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Northern Division, grants the Plaintiffs leave to file their proposed Amended Class Action Complaint without opposition. The lawsuit is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated claimants in Arkansas, who received a payment for the loss of a totaled vehicle from the Defendant, where the Defendant used valuation reports prepared by Mitchell International, Inc., to determine the actual cash value ("ACV") of the loss vehicles. Plaintiff Erik Knight was a Arkansas citizen. He was contracted with Progressive for automobile insurance. On Aug. 28, 2020, he was in a car wreck and the Defendant deemed his vehicle to be a total loss. Defendant Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company is an Ohio company with its principal place of business in Ohio. The Defendant is a subsidiary of Progressive Group entities. The Defendant provides insurance coverage throughout the United States for first-party property damage under collision and/or comprehensive coverage. The Defendant conducted business in Arkansas through insurance agents and other company personnel. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/29rs5rjk from PacerMonitor.com. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Class Settlement in Stewart Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pamela STEWART, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02043-AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andrew G. Schopler entered an order granting the unopposed motion for preliminary settlement approval of both the class claims and the PAGA representative action. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on Dec. 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 1. The following class is conditionally certified for settlement purposes only, pending a final hearing on the matter: "All current and former non-exempt Patient Service Representatives of the Defendant who were employed at any time in the State of California during the Class Settlement Period." 2. The proposed Notice of Class and PAGA Action Settlement is approved. 3. The Plaintiffs Pamela Stewart and Zulekha Abdul are appointed as class representatives, and Graham S.P. Hollis and Hali M. Anderson of GrahamHollis APC are appointed as class counsel. 4. Simpluris, Inc., is appointed as settlement administrator. 5. The Plaintiffs' request for leave to file the second amended complaint is granted. 6. The parties must meet the following deadlines: Defendant to Submit Class Data to the June 23, 2025 Settlement Administrator: Settlement Administrator to Mail the July 14, 2025 Notice of Settlement to all Class Members: Hearing on Final Approval and Fairness: Dec. 5, 2025 The Plaintiffs request conditional certification of a new class for "settlement purposes only." The previously certified class includes: "All of the Defendant's non-exempt California Patient Service Representatives who were not compensated with one hour of pay for all instances where they did not receive a duty-free and uninterrupted 10 minute rest period consistent with California law, any time between September 13, 2015, and the date of judgment." By contrast, the newly proposed class would include: "All current and former non-exempt Patient Service Representatives of Defendant who were employed at any time in the State of California during the Class Settlement Period." Quest provides professional analytic or diagnostic services for the medical profession. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dniq9J at no extra charge.[CC] RALPH LAUREN: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Salazar Due Oct. 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIVIAN SALAZAR, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an amended scheduling order: Event Deadline Close of Fact and Expert Discovery Related Aug. 12, 2025 to Class Certification: Last Day to File Motion for Class Oct. 15, 2025 Certification: Last Day to File Opposition: Nov. 5, 2025 Last Day to File Reply: Nov. 19, 2025 Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: Dec. 11, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Ralph designs, markets and distributes premium lifestyle products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=acOWTk at no extra charge.[CC] RB GLOBAL: Controls Construction Equipment Rental Prices, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- STRUPP TRUCKING, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RB GLOBAL, INC.; ROUSE SERVICES LLC; UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., and SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00846 (D. Conn., May 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices nationwide. According to the complaint, Defendant Rouse orchestrated a price-fixing scheme in the construction equipment rental market participated by Rental Company Defendants. Rouse and the Rental Company Defendants have violated and continue to violate U.S. antitrust laws. Instead of setting their rental rates independently, the Rental Company Defendants, who control much of the nation's construction equipment rental market, outsource rate-setting to a common entity-Rouse. By acting collectively through Rouse, the Rental Company Defendants eliminate competition between themselves. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other appropriate relief, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Strupp Trucking, Inc. is a trucking company, headquartered in Wisconsin. RB Global, Inc. is a public company, headquartered in Illinois. Rouse Services LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of RB Global, Inc., headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. United Rentals, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Connecticut. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in North Carolina. HERC Rentals Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Florida. H&E Equipment Services, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Louisiana. Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Shashi K. Gowda, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Email: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com sgowda@gustafsongluek.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com RED TIE: Faces Sandell Wage-and-Hour Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ TAYLOR SANDELL, ANDREA ALDAPE, ELEANOR ELAZARY, SYMORE FORLAND, and SAMANTHA CLAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RED TIE, LLC, dba RED TIE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a California corporation; RED TIE, INC. dba RED TIE GENTLEMENS'S CLUB; MIKE MUDARIS, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04864 (C.D. Cal., May 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wage, unlawful taking of tips, illegal kickbacks, forced tip sharing, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to indemnify business expenses, and compelled patronization of employer and/or other persons. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as dancers at Red Tie Gentlemen's Club in California. Red Tie, LLC, doing business as Red Tie Gentlemen's Club, is an operator of an adult-oriented entertainment facility located in Van Nuys, California. Red Tie, Inc., doing business as Red Tie Gentlemen's Club, is an operator of an adult-oriented entertainment facility located in Van Nuys, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara St., Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 837-2000 Email: john@kristensen.law REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.S. et al., v. Regence BlueShield, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01609 (W.D. Wash., Filed Oct. 30, 2017), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order granting stipulated motion for extension of time for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification by Oct. 31, 2025. The nature of suit states violation of Civil Rights.[CC] RESIDENT VERIFY: Expert Discovery in Manaskie Suit Due July 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BONNIE MANASKIE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RESIDENT VERIFY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00704-MHC-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Bly entered a scheduling order. On May 7, 2025, the parties filed their joint preliminary report and discovery plan. The time limits for adding parties, amending the pleadings, filing motions, completing discovery, and discussing settlement are as stated in the joint preliminary report and discovery plan and the Local Rules of this Court. This case is on a four-month discovery track, meaning that discovery would normally close on September 4, 2025. The parties, however, have requested a more robust discovery period given that the matter is a putative class action. The request is granted. Fact discovery in this case shall close on April 7, 2026. Expert discovery shall close July 6, 2026. Motions for summary judgment shall be filed by Aug. 5, 2026. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to file a certificate of interested persons within 14 days of this order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to re-submit this order to the undersigned for further consideration if Plaintiff fails to comply within the specified time. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o65N6G at no extra charge.[CC] RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Williams Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIA WILLIAMS, et al., v. RETREAT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC, et al., Case No. 9:24-cv-80787-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Matthewman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for certification of a collective action. 1. The Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and approval of class representatives, class counsel, and notice is granted. 2. The following class and three subclasses are certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: "All former employees of Retreat Behavioral Health, or its related entities, who worked at or reported to the Defendant's facilities in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut and were not given a minimum of 60 days written notice of termination and whose employment was terminated without cause on or about June 26, 2024, within 30 days of that date or thereafter, as part of, or as the reasonably expected consequence of the mass layoffs or plant closings (as defined by the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988)"; and/or Florida Subclass "All former employees of Retreat Behavioral Health who worked at or reported to the Defendant's facilities in Florida, performed work between June 3, 2024 and June 26, 2024, and were not paid for all wages for work performed as required by Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution." Pennsylvania Subclass "All former employees of Retreat Behavioral Health who worked at or reported to the Defendant's facilities in Pennsylvania, performed work between June 3, 2024 and June 26, 2024, and were not paid for all wages for work performed as required by 43 P.A. Stat. section 260.1, et. seq." Connecticut Subclass "All former employees of Retreat Behavioral Health who worked at or reported to the Defendant's facilities in Connecticut, performed work between June 3, 2024 and June 26, 2024, and were not paid for all wages for work performed as required by CT GEN STAT section 31–58, et seq. 3." For the Rule 23 class, Mia Williams, Brittany Calvert, and Alisa Leggett are appointed as class representatives, and Ryan Barack, Michelle Nadeau, and Michael Pancier are appointed as class counsel. 4. The Plaintiffs' renewed motion for certification of collective action is granted. 5. The following collective is conditionally certified as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All former employees of Retreat Behavioral Health, or its related entities, who were not paid the minimum wage and/or overtime required by the Fair Labor Standards Act for all hours worked between June 3, 2024 and June 26, 2024." 6. For the FLSA Collective Action, Mia Williams, Brittany Calvert, and Alisa Leggett are designated as the representatives of the FLSA Collective members, and Ryan Barack, Michelle Nadeau, and Michael Pancier are designated as counsel for the FLSA Collective members. 7. The proposed notice and consent to join forms are approved. 8. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall have until June 23, 2025, to mail the notice and consent forms to all potential putative class members and opt-in plaintiffs. 9. Individuals who receive notices of the FLSA Collective Action shall have until August 22, 2025, to file their consent forms opting into the FLSA Collective Action Retreat provides inpatient and outpatient treatment for substance abuse and mental health disorders. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sgr1h2 at no extra charge.[CC] RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Seeks More to File Objections in Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Disability Rights South Carolina and 15 Unnamed Plaintiffs as Class Representatives on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Richland County, Case No. 8:22-cv-01358-MGL (D.S.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for the Parties to file their respective Objections to the Court's reports and recommendations by 14 days. The current response deadlines are June 5, 2025, and the new deadlines would be June 19, 2025. The grounds for this motion are that the counsel requires additional time due to current schedules and caseload as well as the complexity of the issues that this case presents. This extension does not interfere with any other deadlines in this case. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R6iGMv at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John T. Lay, Jr., Esq. A. Johnston Cox, Esq. Lindsay A. Joyner, Esq. J. Clayton Mitchell, Esq. Eleanor L. Jones, Esq. GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A. 1201 Main Street, Suite 1200 (29201) Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 779-1833 E-mail: jlay@gwblawfirm.com jcox@gwblawfirm.com ljoyner@gwblawfirm.com cmitchell@gwblawfirm.com ejones@gwblawfirm.com - and - Andrew F. Lindemann, Esq. LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, P.A. Columbia, SC 29260 E-mail: andrew@ldlawsc.com SB&C LTD: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Preston Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lauren King of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled MIKRAE E. PRESTON, Plaintiff v. SB&C, LTD aka SKAGIT BONDED COLLECTOR, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01589-LK (W.D. Wash.). The matter comes before the Court on Defendant SB&C Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion to Certify Question to the Washington State Supreme Court. For reasons explained in this Order, the Court grants in part and defers in part SB&C's motion to dismiss and grants the alternative request for certification. Plaintiff Mikrae Preston is an individual residing in Skagit County. In 2017, she sought medical care at Skagit Valley Hospital. The hospital charged her for those services. She alleges that the hospital should have (but did not) determine whether she was eligible for financial assistance under Washington's Charity Care Act before charging her and attempting to collect the amount owed. At the time she received care from Skagit Valley Hospital, Preston's gross household income was less than 500% of the federal poverty level. According to Preston, the Charity Care Act requires that hospitals provide financial assistance to low-income persons to help with their out-of-pocket medical costs. The Act requires hospitals to determine Charity Care eligibility before attempting to collect on medical bills, and the Washington Administrative Code for Charity Care requires hospitals to determine eligibility at the time of admission or as soon as possible following the initiation of services. Ms. Preston alleges that Skagit Valley Hospital did not screen her for Charity Care eligibility before charging her for the medical services provided. The hospital assigned its claim against Preston to SB&C--a debt collection agency--in February 2018, and in March 2022, SB&C filed a lawsuit to collect on the claim in Skagit Valley District Court. SB&C's complaint did not include any disclosures about Washington's Charity Care program, including those that Preston alleges are required by law. In the state collection action, SB&C moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted. The judgment awarded SB&C $3,522 in principal, $1,760.73 in interest, and $781.00 in costs and fees. Ms. Preston alleges that she only learned about her potential Charity Care eligibility for the first time at the hearing on SB&C's motion for judgment on the pleadings; a few months later in summer 2023, she applied for Charity Care and was approved for a 30% reduction in her hospital debt. But SB&C informed Preston that because the Skagit Regional Health Financial Assistance Policy stated that accounts for which a court has awarded a judgment are not eligible for financial assistance, it would not honor that reduction and expected Preston to pay the full amount owed pursuant to the judgment. Ms. Preston filed a class action complaint in Skagit County Superior Court, naming SB&C as the only Defendant. She asserts violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). She seeks to represent two classes (and two subclasses) of similarly situated plaintiffs: * Failure to Give Notice Class: All individuals the Defendant served with a complaint within the four years preceding the filing of this case to collect on a hospital debt Skagit Valley Hospital assigned to the Defendant for collection; * Failure to Screen Class: All individuals from whom the Defendant attempted to collect a hospital debt allegedly owed to Skagit Valley Hospital, who had not been screened for Charity Care at the time the Defendant attempted to collect from them; * Judgment Subclass: All individuals in the Failure to Give Notice Class or the Failure to Screen Class against whom the Defendant obtained a judgment within four years preceding the filing of this case; and * FDCPA Subclass: All individuals in the Failure to Give Notice Class and the Failure to Screen Class the Defendant attempted to collect from in the year preceding filing of this Complaint. Ms. Preston seeks the following relief for her and the putative class members: (i) FDCPA claim: actual damages (including emotional distress) and statutory damages, as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees, and (ii) CPA claims: actual and treble damages, litigation costs (including attorney's fees), as well as injunctions (1) vacating state court judgments obtained against Preston and class members, (2) requiring SB&C to reduce or eliminate debt owed based on Charity Care eligibility, (3) prohibiting SB&C from engaging in similar future misconduct, and (4) other equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate. This action was filed on Sept. 11, 2024, in Skagit County Superior Court. On Oct. 2, 2024, SB&C removed the action to this Court. The removal petition asserts that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because the complaint asserts a federal claim (the FDCPA claim) and the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the transactionally related state law claims. SB&C, then, moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because it fails to state a claim. Alternatively, SB&C asks the Court to stay this matter and certify the following question to the Washington State Supreme Court: "Do the requirements of RCW 7[0].170.060(8)(a) apply to a collection agency collecting on a hospital debt, as opposed to a hospital itself?" Preston opposes the motion to dismiss and the alternative request to certify the above question. Judge King finds that Preston's claims are not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)). Judge King opines that Preston's request that a state court judgment be vacated does not turn this case into the kind of de facto appeal that Rooker-Feldman bars. Judge King explains that the remedy of vacatur is permissible because it is tied to SB&C's purported misconduct, not the correctness of the state court's decision. And for the same reasons that Preston's request for an injunction vacating state court judgments is not barred by Rooker-Feldman, the rest of the injunctive relief that she seeks is not barred either, Judge King points out. In Preston's request for relief, she asks the Court to vacate all judgments against class members where SB&C has violated RCW 19.16.250 and .260, to vacate all judgments obtained against class members where SB&C has failed to advise them in its initial compliant of their right to apply for Charity Care, and to vacate all judgments obtained against class members. To the extent the request that the Court vacate all judgments obtained against class members is tied to the violations described in the preceding requests, it appears to be redundant, Judge King says. To the extent it is not so tied, this request is untethered to any cause of action or wrongdoing by SB&C, rendering it immaterial and/or impertinent. Vacatur of all judgments against class members could, therefore, sweep far more broadly than the harm alleged in this case, Judge King opines. Preston is, accordingly, ordered to show cause why this portion of her request for relief should not be stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Judge King opines, among other things, that nothing in the statutory text purports to void the assignment of medical debt to a debt collection agency in situations where the originating hospital has not complied with its Charity Care screening obligations. Judge King also finds, among other things, that Preston fails to establish that SB&C violated Section 19.16.250(29)'s notice provision, and that she has not stated a claim that SB&C violated Washington's Collection Agency Act's Charity Care notice requirement. Given the Court's reservations about Fairway's interpretation of Section 70.170.060(8)(a)--and because that case was not appealed further--the Court will defer ruling on this issue and certify the question to the Washington State Supreme Court (citing Fairway Collections, LLC v. Turner, 540 P.3d 805, 816 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023)). The Court certifies the following question: "Do the requirements of RCW 70.170.060(8)(a) apply to a collection agency collecting on a hospital debt, as opposed to a hospital itself?" The Court agrees with SB&C that a stay is warranted. The Court recently stayed proceedings pursuant to the parties' stipulated motion, in which they averred that it is necessary for the Motion to Dismiss to be resolved in order to move forward in this matter. Judge King explains that the motion to dismiss cannot be resolved until the Washington Supreme Court disposes of the certified question. The Supreme Court's resolution of the certified question may narrow Preston's liability theory; at a minimum, it is likely to provide guidance on issues presented in this case. For this reason, Judge King holds that a stay of all proceedings furthers the orderly course of justice. For the reasons laid out in the Order, the Court grants in part and defers in part SB&C's motion to dismiss and grants the alternative request for certification. All of Preston's claims other than those based on Section 70.170.060(8)(a)'s notice requirement are dismissed, and the Court defers ruling on the portion of Preston's claims involving Section 70.170.060(8)(a). The Court certifies the following question of law to the Washington Supreme Court: Do the requirements of RCW 70.170.060(8)(a) apply to a collection agency collecting on a hospital debt, as opposed to a hospital itself? The Clerk of the Court is directed to submit to the Washington Supreme Court certified copies of this Order; a copy of the docket in this matter; and docket numbers 1-1, 13, 14, 18, 20. These records contain the matters in the pending case deemed material for consideration of the certified question. If the Washington Supreme Court accepts review of the certified question, the Court designates SB&C to file the first brief. The parties are referred to Washington Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.16 for additional information regarding procedures upon review of the certified question. Further proceedings in this Court are stayed pending the Washington Supreme Court's decision on whether it will accept review. If the Court accepts review, the proceedings will remain stayed pending receipt of the answer to the certified question. The parties will file a joint status report no later than fourteen (14) days after the earliest of the Washington Supreme Court either declining review or answering the certified question. The Court will address whether Preston will be granted leave to amend her complaint after it rules on the deferred portion of SB&C's motion to dismiss. If the Washington Supreme Court's disposition of the certified question does not moot the Court's order for Preston to show cause why a portion of her request for relief should not be stricken, the Court will set a deadline for Preston to respond to the show cause order after receipt of the parties' joint status report. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3kkr8spc from PacerMonitor.com. SECURIX LLC: Divine Seeks More Time to File Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY DIVINE, KARL MERCHANT, and COLUMBUS JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SECURIX, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00196-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a seven-day extension of time to file their motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's counsel has been dealing with health issues related to a chronic health condition, which has caused him to miss work for an extended period. These health issues have precluded the Plaintiffs from finalizing their motion for class certification. Therefore, the Plaintiffs request a modest, seven-day extension of the deadline for filing their class certification motion, which would set Tuesday, June 3, 2025, as the new deadline. The requested extension will not impact other case deadlines. The Plaintiffs do not file the present motion for delay or any other improper motive. Further, the requested extension will not prejudice the Defendant. Securix delivers holistic IT security solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gPAf0i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian K. Herrington, Esq. Rogen K. Chhabra, Esq. CHHABRA GIBBS & HERRINGTON PLLC 120 N. Congress St., Ste. 200 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 326-0820 Facsimile: (601) 948-8010 E-mail: bherrington@nationalclasslawyers.com rchhabra@nationalclasslawyers.com - and - John G. (Trae) Sims, III, Esq. SIMS LAW FIRM, PLLC Madison, MS 39130 745 HWY 51 - Suite D Madison, MS 39110 Telephone: (601) 207-3732 E-mail: trae@thesimslawfirm.com SHADE STORE: Class Cert Hearing in Crowder Continued to August 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins entered an order 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 Shade Store sells custom window treatments such as shades, drapes, and blinds. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HR8gzc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. Martin Brenner, 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 SHUTTERFLY LLC: Tindol Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------- MELINA TINDOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHUTTERFLY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00921-WWB-UAM (M.D. Fla., May 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of sending telemarketing text messages to the telephone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its goods and services without obtaining prior consent. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to the Plaintiff and the Class members. Shutterfly, LLC is an American photography, photography products, and image sharing company, headquartered in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com SILVERGATE CAPITAL: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Silvergate Capital Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-01936-JES-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Simmons Jr. entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and authorizing dissemination of notice of settlement: The Parties have proposed the certification of the following Settlement Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement: (a) All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Silvergate Capital from November 7, 2019 through March 21, 2023, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, and (b) all persons and entities who purchased Silvergate Capital securities in and/or traceable to any of Silvergate Capital's securities offerings during 2021, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) Defendants; (b) directors and officers of Defendants (at all relevant times); (c) Defendants' Immediate Family Members and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and (d) any entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest; provided, however, that no Investment Vehicle shall be excluded from the Settlement Class. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons or entities who or which timely and validly exclude themselves by submitting a request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court. The Court will hold a settlement hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on Nov. 19, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5SDfzb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2375 Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 The Defendants are represented by: John P. Stigi III, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-4092 - and - Jason C. Hegt, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 SIXTH AVENUE: Alexandria Sues Over Website's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIXTH AVENUE RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04480 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.lamico.nyc, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Sixth Avenue Restaurant Management, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SNOWFLAKE INC: $10MM Settlement in Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:24-md-03126 (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. Snowflake is an American cloud-based data storage company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Og1MQt at no extra charge.[CC] SOC LLC: Bid to Dismiss Darrough Employee Suit Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cristina D. Silva of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuits captioned Gene Darrough, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOC LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01951-CDS-DJA (D. Nev.); Nicholas DeFiore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. SOC LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01981-CDS-DJA (D. Nev.). Defendants SOC LLC ("SOC"), SOC-SMG, Inc. ("SOC-SMG"), and Day & Zimmermann, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") filed a consolidated motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Gene Darrough and Nicholas DeFiore's amended complaints. In their amended complaints, the Plaintiffs, who were previously employed by the Defendants to provide warzone security services to the Department of Defense (DOD) in Iraq, make allegations of false promises and representations regarding work conditions. Darrough and DeFiore oppose the consolidated motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Gene Darrough filed his amended complaint against the Defendants on Aug. 13, 2024. Plaintiffs Nicholas DeFiore, along with twenty-eight other Plaintiffs, filed their complaint against the Defendants on the same day. The complaints are substantially similar. The Plaintiffs were employed as armed guards by SOC, providing security to DOD bases in Iraq. SOC, which stands for "Securing Our Country," provides worldwide security services for individuals, domestic facilities, nuclear power plants, and military bases. SOC is owned by SOC-SMG and Day & Zimmermann. The Plaintiffs bring this action alleging that SOC recruited them under false promises with respect to the schedule they would work. The Plaintiffs allege that the working conditions were not revealed to them until after they had agreed to overseas employment and had been physically transported to Iraq. Once in Iraq, they were forced to work in ultra-hazardous conditions in excess of 12 hours per day without meals or rest periods, seven days per week. According to the complaints, this directly violated not only the representations made by SOC to secure the Plaintiffs' employment, but its DOD contract. That contract mandated that SOC would not require any guard to work longer than one twelve-hour shift per twenty-four-hour period, and not more than seventy-two hours per week (i.e., the "6/12 schedule"). The Plaintiffs further allege that SOC, thus, subjected the Plaintiffs and SOC's clients, including the United States of America, to undue risk by jeopardizing the physical and psychological condition of the Plaintiffs in the course of ultra-hazardous activities. The complaints assert eight claims for relief: (1) promissory fraud; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) unjust enrichment–fraud; (4) money had and received; (5) breach of contract; (6) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) quantum meruit; and (8) unjust enrichment–breach of contract. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants orchestrated a broad scheme that included false representations about employees' future salary and work conditions in Iraq. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants knew that the representations were false and fraudulent at the time they made them, and that the Defendants had no intention to honor the representations. Because of these statements, the Plaintiffs raise claims alleging promissory fraud, negligent representation, tortious and contractual unjust enrichment, and money had and received, which are subject to the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b). The Defendants move to dismiss counts one through four, as well as count eight, for failure to plead with specificity as required by Rule 9(b) and count six for failure to state a claim for relief. The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs' alter ego allegations are insufficient, so they move to dismiss SOC-SMG and Day & Zimmermann. The Defendants also argue that the claims brought by the Plaintiffs-Intervenors in the DeFiore case are untimely and should be dismissed with prejudice. Judge Silva finds that the Plaintiffs' amended complaints again fails to meet the heightened pleading requirement under Rule 9(b). The Plaintiffs cite no case law indicating that the group pleading standard can be used to apply to the alleged conduct of multiple plaintiffs without meeting Rule 9(b)'s specificity requirement. The case law the Plaintiffs cite to involve scenarios where courts found that group pleading as to conduct by multiple defendants was permissible. Therefore, Judge Silva says the argument that the Plaintiffs are entitled to group pleading is unpersuasive. Judge Silva holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to surpass the heightened pleading standard Rule 9(b) requires and their fraud claims are, therefore, dismissed. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to these claims. Although this case has been going on for years and the Plaintiffs have yet to plead their fraud claims with the required specificity, it is not entirely clear that amendment would be futile, Judge Silva opines. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' fraud claims: promissory fraud, negligent representation, tortious and contractual unjust enrichment, and money had and received are dismissed without prejudice. Should they choose to file a third amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in these claims, Judge Silva says they must do so no later than two weeks after the date of this Order. Judge Silva dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs' breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. Judge Silva explains that the Plaintiffs were already given the opportunity to amend the claim and chose not to; hence, amendment would be futile. Because SOC-SMG and Day & Zimmerman are not joint venturers and cannot be held liable on that theory, Judge Silva assessed whether the Plaintiffs have properly alleged that SOC-SMG and Day & Zimmerman participated in the wrongdoing. Judge Silva finds that at this stage in the proceedings, Day & Zimmerman are proper defendants. However, Judge Silva says, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts that would allow the Court to find that SOC-SMG personally participated in the alleged wrongdoing. Given that the Plaintiffs have continually failed to plead allegations supporting SOC-SMG as a proper party, Judge Silva holds that their claims against SOC-SMG are dismissed with prejudice. Judge Silva finds that Intervenors Kelvin Hardin, Kenneth Robinson, and Marlesh Mbory are proper parties in this action. However, Judge Silva notes, the briefing relating to Intervenor-Plaintiff Gregory Niffen's motion to intervene included extensive briefing on the question of whether Niffen's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, the parties are ordered to provide supplemental briefing on whether Plaintiff-Intervenors Niffen, Hardin, Robinson, and Mbory's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' fraud claims: promissory fraud, negligent representation, tortious and contractual unjust enrichment, and money had and received are dismissed without prejudice. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim is dismissed with prejudice. All claims against SOC-SMG are dismissed with prejudice. Should the Plaintiffs wish to file a second amended complaint to replead their fraud claims their deadline was May 23, 2025. The parties are to submit briefs no longer than five pages by May 30, 2025, for the limited purpose of determining whether the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' claims are barred by statutes of limitations. The Clerk of Court is instructed to add Kelvin Hardin, Kenneth Robinson, and Marlesh Mbory as Intervenor-Plaintiffs in DeFiore, et al. v. SOC LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01981-CDS-DJA. The Plaintiffs are instructed to file the response to the motion to dismiss into the DeFiore case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/952h3h6n from PacerMonitor.com. SOC LLC: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss DeFiore Employee Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Cristina D. Silva of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuits entitled Gene Darrough, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOC LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01951-CDS-DJA (D. Nev.); Nicholas DeFiore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. SOC LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01981-CDS-DJA (D. Nev.). Defendants SOC LLC ("SOC"), SOC-SMG, Inc. ("SOC-SMG"), and Day & Zimmermann, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") filed a consolidated motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Gene Darrough and Nicholas DeFiore's amended complaints. In their amended complaints, the Plaintiffs, who were previously employed by the Defendants to provide warzone security services to the Department of Defense (DOD) in Iraq, make allegations of false promises and representations regarding work conditions. Darrough and DeFiore oppose the consolidated motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Gene Darrough filed his amended complaint against the Defendants on Aug. 13, 2024. Plaintiffs Nicholas DeFiore, along with twenty-eight other Plaintiffs, filed their complaint against the Defendants on the same day. The complaints are substantially similar. The Plaintiffs were employed as armed guards by SOC, providing security to DOD bases in Iraq. SOC, which stands for "Securing Our Country," provides worldwide security services for individuals, domestic facilities, nuclear power plants, and military bases. SOC is owned by SOC-SMG and Day & Zimmermann. The Plaintiffs bring this action alleging that SOC recruited them under false promises with respect to the schedule they would work. The Plaintiffs allege that the working conditions were not revealed to them until after they had agreed to overseas employment and had been physically transported to Iraq. Once in Iraq, they were forced to work in ultra-hazardous conditions in excess of 12 hours per day without meals or rest periods, seven days per week. According to the complaints, this directly violated not only the representations made by SOC to secure the Plaintiffs' employment, but its DOD contract. That contract mandated that SOC would not require any guard to work longer than one twelve-hour shift per twenty-four-hour period, and not more than seventy-two hours per week (i.e., the "6/12 schedule"). The Plaintiffs further allege that SOC, thus, subjected the Plaintiffs and SOC's clients, including the United States of America, to undue risk by jeopardizing the physical and psychological condition of the Plaintiffs in the course of ultra-hazardous activities. The complaints assert eight claims for relief: (1) promissory fraud; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) unjust enrichment–fraud; (4) money had and received; (5) breach of contract; (6) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) quantum meruit; and (8) unjust enrichment–breach of contract. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants orchestrated a broad scheme that included false representations about employees' future salary and work conditions in Iraq. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants knew that the representations were false and fraudulent at the time they made them, and that the Defendants had no intention to honor the representations. Because of these statements, the Plaintiffs raise claims alleging promissory fraud, negligent representation, tortious and contractual unjust enrichment, and money had and received, which are subject to the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b). The Defendants move to dismiss counts one through four, as well as count eight, for failure to plead with specificity as required by Rule 9(b) and count six for failure to state a claim for relief. The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs' alter ego allegations are insufficient, so they move to dismiss SOC-SMG and Day & Zimmermann. The Defendants also argue that the claims brought by the Plaintiffs-Intervenors in the DeFiore case are untimely and should be dismissed with prejudice. Judge Silva finds that the Plaintiffs' amended complaints again fails to meet the heightened pleading requirement under Rule 9(b). The Plaintiffs cite no case law indicating that the group pleading standard can be used to apply to the alleged conduct of multiple plaintiffs without meeting Rule 9(b)'s specificity requirement. The case law the Plaintiffs cite to involve scenarios where courts found that group pleading as to conduct by multiple defendants was permissible. Therefore, Judge Silva says the argument that the Plaintiffs are entitled to group pleading is unpersuasive. Judge Silva holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to surpass the heightened pleading standard Rule 9(b) requires and their fraud claims are, therefore, dismissed. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to these claims. Although this case has been going on for years and the Plaintiffs have yet to plead their fraud claims with the required specificity, it is not entirely clear that amendment would be futile, Judge Silva opines. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' fraud claims: promissory fraud, negligent representation, tortious and contractual unjust enrichment, and money had and received are dismissed without prejudice. Should they choose to file a third amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in these claims, Judge Silva says they must do so no later than two weeks after the date of this Order. Judge Silva dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs' breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. Judge Silva explains that the Plaintiffs were already given the opportunity to amend the claim and chose not to; hence, amendment would be futile. Because SOC-SMG and Day & Zimmerman are not joint venturers and cannot be held liable on that theory, Judge Silva assessed whether the Plaintiffs have properly alleged that SOC-SMG and Day & Zimmerman participated in the wrongdoing. Judge Silva finds that at this stage in the proceedings, Day & Zimmerman are proper defendants. However, Judge Silva says, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts that would allow the Court to find that SOC-SMG personally participated in the alleged wrongdoing. Given that the Plaintiffs have continually failed to plead allegations supporting SOC-SMG as a proper party, Judge Silva holds that their claims against SOC-SMG are dismissed with prejudice. Judge Silva finds that Intervenors Kelvin Hardin, Kenneth Robinson, and Marlesh Mbory are proper parties in this action. However, Judge Silva notes, the briefing relating to Intervenor-Plaintiff Gregory Niffen's motion to intervene included extensive briefing on the question of whether Niffen's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, the parties are ordered to provide supplemental briefing on whether Plaintiff-Intervenors Niffen, Hardin, Robinson, and Mbory's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' fraud claims: promissory fraud, negligent representation, tortious and contractual unjust enrichment, and money had and received are dismissed without prejudice. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim is dismissed with prejudice. All claims against SOC-SMG are dismissed with prejudice. Should the Plaintiffs wish to file a second amended complaint to replead their fraud claims their deadline was May 23, 2025. The parties are to submit briefs no longer than five pages by May 30, 2025, for the limited purpose of determining whether the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' claims are barred by statutes of limitations. The Clerk of Court is instructed to add Kelvin Hardin, Kenneth Robinson, and Marlesh Mbory as Intervenor-Plaintiffs in DeFiore, et al. v. SOC LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01981-CDS-DJA. The Plaintiffs are instructed to file the response to the motion to dismiss into the DeFiore case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvxn6uzf from PacerMonitor.com. SONIC FRANCHISING: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Dalton Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONIC FRANCHISING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02243 (D. Minn., May 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.sonicdrivein.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: insufficient screen reader-accessible text equivalent for important non-text images, unclear purpose of certain links and/or buttons, and unnarrated scrolling content. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Sonic Franchising, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SPIRIT PHARMACEUTICALS: $1.5MM Settlement in Rios Gets Initial OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORENA ABARZA RIOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SPIRIT PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-03637-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James Wicks entered an order conditionally certifying class for settlement purposes only: -- Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs and all non-managerial employees who worked for Spirit Pharmaceuticals LLC at any time between May 16, 2017, and October 25, 2023. The Court further entered an order: -- appointing Plaintiff, for settlement purposes only, as a Class Representative; -- appointing Pechman Law Group PLLC, for settlement purposes only, as Class Counsel; -- appointing Arden Claims Service LLC, for settlement purposes only, as Claims Administrator to carry out the duties and procedures set forth in the Agreement; -- directing Settlement Administrator to disseminate the Notice to the Class Members as provided in the Agreement; The total settlement amount is $1,500,000 (Settlement Fund). This amount covers: (i) Class Members' awards, (ii) Class Counsel attorneys' fees and costs (not to exceed a third of the award—$500,000), (iii) Plaintiff's service award of $20,000, (iv) expenses of the Settlement Claims Administrator, and (v) any applicable employer FICA withholdings on Class Members' Individual Settlement Shares. Spirit distributes pharmaceutical medicines. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x0S1UC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Galen C. Baynes, Esq. Camille A. Sanchez, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Ave., Suite 1704 New York, NY 10022 The Defendant is represented by: Douglas E. Rowe, Esq. CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN, LLP 90 Merrick Avenue East Meadow, NY 11554 TALPHERA INC: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Talphera, 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 securities class action lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California remains pending. On June 8, 2021, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and two of its officers. The plaintiff is a purported stockholder of the Company. The complaint alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact about the Company's disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA. The complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On December 16, 2021, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2022. The amended complaint named the Company and three of its officers and continued to allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact about the Company's disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA. The amended complaint also asserted a violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants for alleged insider trading. The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Court granted three motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint: the first on September 28, 2022, the second on November 28, 2022, and the third, with prejudice on May 7, 2024. Judgment was entered for defendants on plaintiffs' claims on May 7, 2024. On June 5, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing on the appeal was complete on January 21, 2025. Oral argument for the appeal is set for June 12, 2025. On July 6, 2021, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint names ten of the Company's officers and directors and asserts state and federal claims based on the same alleged misstatements as the securities class action complaint. On September 30, 2021, October 26, 2021, and November 17, 2021, three additional purported shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints name nine of the Company's officers and directors and also assert state and federal claims based on the same alleged misstatements as the securities class action complaint. All four complaints seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On December 6, 2021, the Court entered an order consolidating all four actions and staying the consolidated action pending the outcome of any motion to dismiss the securities class action. On February 16, 2024, another purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, asserting the same claims as those in the previously filed derivative actions. The case has been stayed pending the outcome of any motion to dismiss the securities class action. TEAM SOCA: Rose Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLENE ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEAM SOCA BAR AND LOUNGE LLC and GODFREY LEWIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02998 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including unlawful tip retention, failure to pay minimum wage, and failure to provide proper wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server from April 11, 2024, until in or around February 2025. Team Soca Bar and Lounge LLC is a restaurant owner and operator, doing business as PiCH Restaurant and Lounge, located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Email: awhite@vkvlawyers.com TOPGOLF PAYROLL: Court Vacates June 16 Class Cert Hearing --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benyamin v. TopGolf Payroll Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00303 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order as follows: -- Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the pending motion to deny class certification is submitted without oral argument. -- Accordingly, the hearing set for June 16, 2025, is vacated, to be reset at a later date if the court determines that oral argument is needed. -- This order does not impact the filing deadlines for opposition and reply briefs, which shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. Topgolf was founded in 2000 and remained independent until it was acquired by Callaway Golf in 2020, but the companies announced a planned split in 2024.[CC] TRUEACCORD CORP: McKee Files Consumer Credit Suit in W.D.N.C. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp., et al. The case is captioned as KATHLEEN MCKEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRUEACCORD CORP., et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00067-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C., April 29, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. TrueAccord Corp. is a financial technology company, headquartered in Lenexa, Kansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Cohen, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: jcohen@steinsakslegal.com - and - C. Randolph Emory, Esq. THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C. 11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102 Charlotte, NC 28262 Telephone: (704) 371-4333 Facsimile: (704) 371-3015 Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com TRUIST FINANCIAL: Embed Web Trackers Without Consent, Tasker Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN TASKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01301 (C.D. Cal., May 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Penal Code, California Constitution, California Civil Code, and California Business & Professions Code, intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from Truist Financial's practice of installing and using tracking technologies on its website, www.truist.com, without prior consent from website visitors. Truist Financial enables these trackers, which transmit user data to third-party servers to identify users and support advertising, profiling, and data monetization activities, suit says. Through the trackers, the third parties collect detailed user information including IP addresses, browser and device type, screen resolution, operating system, pages visited, session duration, scroll depth, mouse movements, click behavior, referring URLs, unique identifiers (such as cookies and ad IDs), and geolocation based on IP. This information is used for behavioral profiling, ad targeting, cross-device tracking, and participation in real-time advertising auctions. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated website visitors suffered damages. Truist Financial Corporation is a financial services firm, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Manning, Esq. MANNING LAW, APC 26100 Towne Centre Drive Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Telephone: (949) 200-8755 Email: privacy@manninglawoffice.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com TWITTER INC: Parties in Weinberg Seek to Revise Briefing Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NHU WEINBERG, SAMANTHA GONGORA, JULIA STEELE, OMOLADE OGUNSANYA, NANCI SILLS, KRISTA BESSINGER, IKUHIRO IHARA, and others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-04016-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order revising the briefing schedule so that the: -- Plaintiff's revised expert report is due by June 13, 2025, -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by July 2, 2025, -- Defendant's opposition is due by July 30, 2025, and -- Plaintiff's reply is due by August 13, 2025. Currently Plaintiff Weinberg's Motion for Class Certification is due by May 28, 2025, Defendant's Opposition is due by June 25, 2025, and Plaintiff's Reply is due by July 9, 2025. Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging service. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8m9kPo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Brian D. Berry, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com brian.berry@morganlewis.com ULTIMATE DIAMONDS: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTIMATE DIAMONDS RETAIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03002 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.ultimatediamond.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Ultimate Diamonds Retail, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com UNITED STATES: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Doster v. Air Force ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled HUNTER DOSTER; JASON ANDERSON; MCKENNA COLANTANIO; PAUL CLEMENT; JOE DILLS; BENJAMIN LEIBY; BRETT MARTIN; CONNOR MCCORMICK; HEIDI MOSHER; PETER NORRIS; PATRICK POTTINGER; ALEX RAMSPERGER; BENJAMIN RINALDI; DOUGLAS RUYLE; CHRISTOPHER SCHULDES; EDWARD STAPANON, III; ADAM THERIAULT; DANIEL REINEKE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. HON. FRANK KENDALL, III, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; LT. GENERAL BRIAN S. ROBINSON, in his official capacity as Commander, Air Education and Training Command; LT. GENERAL JOHN P. HEALY, in his official capacity as Commander, Air Force Reserve Command; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MAJOR GENERAL JOHN D. DEGOES, in his official capacity as Surgeon General of the Air Force; LT. GENERAL MICHAEL E. CONLEY, in his official capacity as Commander, Air Force Special Operations Command, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-3404 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the dismissal of the lower court case. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Before: Raymond M. Kethledge, John K. Bush and Eric E. Murphy, Circuit Judges. Circuit Judge Kethledge wrote the Opinion. Eighteen members of the United States Air Force sued the government alleging that the Air Force's requirement to take the COVID-19 vaccine violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the action as moot after the Air Force rescinded the requirement. The Panel affirms. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine in August 2021. At President Joe Biden's request, the Secretary of Defense directed all Armed Forces to take the vaccine. Frank Kendall, the Secretary of the Air Force, ordered active-duty members of the Air Force to be vaccinated by Nov. 2, 2021, and reservists by Dec. 2, 2021. In a memorandum attached to the order, Kendall outlined the steps to request medical, administrative, and religious exemptions. The Named Plaintiffs--14 active-duty members of the Air Force and four active reservists--all requested religious exemptions to the mandate, and the Air Force granted none of their requests. In February 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the United States, Secretary Kendall, and four other officers of the Air Force, all in their official capacities. The Plaintiffs asked the court to enjoin the Defendants from enforcing the mandate against the Plaintiffs or others similarly situated; to direct the Defendants to grant the Plaintiffs' exemption requests; and to declare that the mandate illegally burdened the Plaintiffs' religious exercise in violation of RFRA and the First Amendment. They also asked the court to certify the class and to award costs, including attorney fees, and other appropriate relief. They did not request damages, back pay, or retirement points for missed drills. The district court certified the class and issued preliminary injunctions, enjoining the Defendants from, among other things, disciplining or separating class members or placing active reservists on "no-points, no-pay status" for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine "due to their sincerely held religious beliefs." This court affirmed those injunctions in November 2022 (Doster v. Kendall, 54 F.4th 398 (6th Cir. 2022)). Then, in December 2022, Congress enacted the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which ordered the Secretary of Defense to rescind the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The Secretary rescinded the mandate on Jan. 10, 2023, and the Air Force soon did the same. The Defendants then filed a petition for a panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc, requesting to vacate the panel opinion and the preliminary injunctions, which this court denied (Doster v. Kendall, 65 F.4th 792 (6th Cir. 2023)) (order). Soon after, the Defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court and moved in the district court to dismiss the entire case as moot because the court could no longer grant any of the Plaintiffs' requested relief. In December 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to this Court with instructions to direct the district court to vacate its preliminary injunctions as moot (Kendall v. Doster, 144 S. Ct. 481 (2023), citing United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950)). The district court then vacated the preliminary injunctions and ordered supplemental briefing on whether the entire case was moot. After reviewing that briefing, the court granted the Defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the case. The Plaintiffs now appeal. The Plaintiffs concede that Kendall's recission of the vaccine mandate "moots most of the case for many of the named plaintiffs and much of the class." But they argue that two of the Named Plaintiffs, Joe Dills and Christopher Schuldes, still have a live case even after the Air Force rescinded the mandate. Dills and Schuldes are active reservists whom the Air Force placed on "no-points, no-pay" status after they refused to take the vaccine. That status meant they were no longer allowed to attend drill weekends, where they would have earned drill pay and retirement points. They asserted for the first time in supplemental briefing on the mootness issue--two years after they filed suit--that the court could award them back pay and retirement points for the drill weekends the reservists missed. But the Plaintiffs did not seek this relief in their complaint, Judge Kethledge opines. They asked the court to enjoin the Defendants from enforcing the vaccine mandate against them, to grant their religious-exemption requests, and to declare that the mandate violated RFRA and the First Amendment. The Panel points out that none of this relief would have any practical effect on the Plaintiffs' rights now that the Air Force has rescinded the mandate. Hence the case is moot. The district court's judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/4j42pp3u from GovInfo. UNITED STATES: Appeals Final Judgment Order in Steel Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is taking a cross appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Adam Steele, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United States of America, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-01523-RCL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed this complaint against the Defendant to recover annual payments delineated as user fees to receive and renew a preparer tax identification number ("PTIN") to be placed on tax returns prepared by tax return preparers for others for compensation, and to prohibit the U.S. Treasury Department from charging such fees in the future. On Jan. 24, 2023, Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment; granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal; denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify; granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal; granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File; and denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Take Judicial Notice. On Apr. 6, 2023, Judge Lamberth entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend/Correct. On Sept. 25, 2023, Judge Lamberth entered an Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment and Motion to Clarify. On Mar. 24, 2025, Judge Lamberth granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Judgment as to Count 2 in their Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The appellate case is captioned Brittany Montrois, et al. v. USA, Case No. 25-5192, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on May 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees BRITTANY MONTROIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Allen Buckley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALLEN BUCKLEY LLC 2900 Paces Ferry Road, Suite C-2000 Atlanta, GA 30339 - and - Deepak Gupta, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER LLP 2001 K. Street, NW, Suite 850 North Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 - and - William Henry Narwold, Esq. Charlotte Eleanor Loper, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 882-1681 Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by: DOJ Appellate Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 UNITED STATES: Fact Discovery Completion in Tang Due June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONY TANG and GILBERTO TORRES GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:23-cv-09885-LTS-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn Tarnofsky entered an order setting new deadlines for completing discovery are as follows: -- Completion of fact discovery by June 30, 2025 -- Completion of expert discovery by Oct. 2, 2025 -- All other deadlines shall be extended by 45 days. The Defendant is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kTmIVK at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Hagans Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOWAN HAGANS, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01671-AHA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class as to all claims in this action, defined as follows: "All people on supervised release for D.C. Code offenses who are or will be detained by the United States Parole Commission pending a revocation hearing." The Plaintiff further moves the Court to certify Antowan Hagans as class representative. The Plaintiff further moves the Court to appoint the Plaintiff's counsel from the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia as class counsel. United is the parole board responsible for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5J2Hlr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hanna M. Perry, Esq. Zoe E. Friedland, Esq. PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 633 3rd Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 579-0633 E-mail: hperry@pdsdc.org zfriedland@pdsdc.org UNITED STATES: Parties Must Exchange Initial Disclosures by July 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AL GLOBAL CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:25-cv-00364-GPC-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle M. Pettit entered an order for early neutral evaluation conference and case management conference. Event Deadline Meet and confer regarding whether to proceed June 6, 2025 in-person for ENE/CMC: Meet and confer pursuant to July 11, 2025 Fed. R. Civ. P 26(f): Parties must exchange initial disclosures July 25, 2025 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)-(D): Parties must file their joint discovery plan: July 25, 2025 Pre-ENE telephone calls with counsel only: July 29, 2025 ENE and CMC before the Honorable Michelle Aug. 1, 2025 Pettit: at 2:00 P.M. via videoconference U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UXObQY at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: S.D. New York Dismisses Epperson Suit as Frivolous ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Louis L. Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismisses the lawsuit entitled CHRIS JONATHAN EPPERSON, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HOUSE OF SENATE; HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN PARTY; UNITED STATES CONGRESS; FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT; HARRY S. TRUMAN; RICHARD M. NIXON; LYNDON B. JOHNSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06619-LLS (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Chris Jonathan Epperson, who resides in Fresno, California, and appears pro se, filed his complaint commencing the present action invoking both the Court's federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. He sues the United States of America, United States Senate, the House of Representatives, the "Democratic Republican Party," the United States Congress and former and deceased presidents. In his complaint, the Plaintiff states that he seeks from the United States "500.000.000.000 Bullion to 1.7.000.000.000.000 Trillion each fiscal year on the operations of the United States Mint violating Article X of the United States Constitution [sic]." By order dated Sept. 6, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), that is, without prepayment of fees. Judge Stanton notes that the Plaintiff's complaint does not contain many facts. The Plaintiff alleges, in his complaint, that the events that are the bases for his claims occurred in the Federal Reserve Building on Dec. 29, 1941. His complaint's statement of claim contains no other facts; its remainder includes only lists of statutes, federal regulations, federal court rules, and appendixes. In the injuries section of his complaint, the Plaintiff states the following: "September 24, 1980 gun powder-plot nail in the coffin of the constitution had been violated by the action of the state legislature where the prohibition is against state laws impairing the obligation of contracts. [sic]" Judge Stanton adds that in his first supplement, which is not signed, is similar to the complaint's statement of claim, and it also seems to indicate his intent to proceed with this action as a class action. The Plaintiff's second supplement is written using a declaration form that is issued to pro se litigants by this Court. The Plaintiff describes that document as an "Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" and as a "Brief Opposition for Appellant's Motion of no Confidence [sic]." The Plaintiff's third supplement, which he describes as a "Brief for the Appellant," appears to be a copy of an appellate brief filed in an unspecified case before the Supreme Court of the United States regarding a former employee of the National Security Agency. The Court must dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against the United States of America, the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, the United States Government, and the United States Congress under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Judge Stanton explains that the Plaintiff alleges nothing to suggest that the doctrine of sovereign immunity has been waived with respect to his claims against any of the federal government defendants. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and consequently, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Stanton holds that the Plaintiff's claims are frivolous. Judge Stanton explains that the Plaintiff's allegations, in his complaint and in his supplements, appear to be an incoherent and fantastic attempt to assert at least one claim that he has been somehow wronged by the United States Government. Because the Plaintiff's allegations are incoherent and fantastic, however, there is no factual predicate or legal theory on which he may rely to state a claim. Thus, Judge Stanton points out that a finding of frivolousness is warranted as to all of the Plaintiff's claims. The Court, therefore, dismisses all of the Plaintiff's claims as frivolous. Because it appears that the defects in the Plaintiff's complaint and supplements cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant him leave to amend. By order dated Oct. 16, 2024, in another of the Plaintiff's pro se actions brought in this Court, the Court barred the Plaintiff from filing future civil actions IFP in this Court without first obtaining from the Court leave to file, citing Epperson v. U.S. Gov't, No. 1:24-CV-6658 (LTS), 2024 WL 4519910, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2024). Because the Plaintiff filed the present action before that filing injunction was entered, the present action is not subject to that filing injunction, Judge Stanton says. The Court reminds the Plaintiff, however, that he remains subject to the filing injunction with respect to any civil action that he has filed or will file in this Court after the entry of that filing injunction in which he seeks to proceed IFP. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrnwn887 from PacerMonitor.com. UPBOUND GROUP: Faces McBurnie Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------ Upbound Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2025, that the company is a defendant in a putative class action entitled "McBurnie, et al. v. Acceptance Now, LLC," brought on behalf of individuals who entered into a rental purchase agreement with the company's "Acceptance Now" business in California and were charged a processing fee and/or an expedited fee. The action is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs allege that the fees they were charged were neither "reasonable" nor "actually incurred" in violation of the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act and other California state consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages and statutory damages pursuant to the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act; attorneys' fees and costs; exemplary damages; and public injunctions for alleged violations of the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California unfair competition laws. In November 2022, the District Court denied the company's motion to compel arbitration, and in December 2022, it filed an interlocutory appeal of that denial with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, pending which the District Court proceedings were stayed. In March 2024, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration and its finding that plaintiffs' challenge to the processing fee was not moot, while remanding the action to the District Court to consider whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the expedited payment fee. Plaintiffs have since notified the District Court that they do not intend to pursue their claims regarding the expedited payment fee. In June 2024, the company filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, appealing the decision from the Court of Appeals. The petition for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court in October 2024. Proceedings before the District Court have resumed. In February 2025, the parties proposed a revised case schedule to the District Court. Upbound Group, Inc. is a technology company into financial solutions via its "Acima" and "Rent-A-Center" segments and is a lease-to-own provider with operations in the United States, Puerto Rico and Mexico. UROGEN PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 28 ----------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against UroGen Pharma Ltd. (NASDAQ: URGN) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in UroGen you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/urogen-pharma-ltd-class-action-lawsuit. Investors have until July 28, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased UroGen securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and is captioned: Cockrell v. UroGen Pharma Ltd., et al., No. 3:25-cv-06088. Why was UroGen Sued for Securities Fraud? UroGen develops treatments for specialty cancers. The Company's lead pipeline product is UGN-102 (mitomycin), an intravesical solution intended to treat low-grade intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. One of the Phase 3 trials for UGN-102 is named ENVISION. As alleged, UroGen stated that the ENVISION trial met its primary endpoint and that UroGen had reached "agreement with the FDA" that the ENVISION trial would support an NDA submission. In truth, the FDA had previously expressed significant concerns to UroGen regarding the ENVISION trial, which lacked a concurrent control arm. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On May 16, 2025, the FDA published a briefing document stating that it doubted whether the submitted data was sufficient to conclude that UGN-102 was effective. FDA stated that because "ENVISION lacked a concurrent control arm," the primary endpoints were "difficult to interpret" and that UroGen "chose not to conduct a randomized trial with a design and endpoints that the FDA considered appropriate." On this news, the price of UroGen stock declined $2.54 per share, or nearly 26%, from a closing price of $9.85 per share on May 15, 2025, to $7.31 per share on May 16, 2025. Then, on May 21, 2025, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted against approving the UGN-102 NDA, finding that the overall benefit-risk profile of UGN-102 was not favorable in patients with recurrent low-grade, intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. On this news, the price of UroGen stock declined $3.37 per share, or nearly 45%, from a closing price of $7.54 per share on May 20, 2025, to $4.17 per share on May 21, 2025. Click here if you suffered losses: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/urogen-pharma-ltd-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in UroGen you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/urogen-pharma-ltd-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/urogen-pharma-ltd-class-action-lawsuit [GN] UROGEN PHARMA: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Cockrell v. UroGen Pharma Ltd., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-06088, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired UroGen Pharma Ltd. ("UroGen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: URGN) securities between July 27, 2023 and May 15, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR UROGEN PHARMA LTD. INVESTMENTS, CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. What Happened? On May 16, 2025, before the market opened, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") published a briefing document in advance of its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting regarding UroGen's new drug application ("NDA") for UGN-102, which stated the agency doubted whether the submitted data was sufficient to conclude that UGN-102 was effective. In the briefing document, the FDA stated: "[g]iven that [the ENVISION trial] lacked a concurrent control arm, the primary endpoints of complete response (CR) and duration of response (DOR) are difficult to interpret." The FDA also said it had "recommended a randomized trial design to the Applicant several times during their product's development due to concerns with interpreting efficacy results" but UroGen "chose not to conduct a randomized trial with a design and endpoints that the FDA considered appropriate." On this news, UroGen's stock price fell $2.54, or 25.8%, to close at $7.31 per share on May 16, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on May 21, 2025, before the market opened, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted against approving the UGN-102 NDA. The committee found that the overall benefit-risk of the investigational therapy UGN-102 (intravesical mitomycin) is not favorable in patients with recurrent low-grade, intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. On this news, UroGen's stock price fell $3.37, or 44.7%, to close at $4.17 per share on May 21, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the ENVISION clinical study was not designed to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness of UGN-102 because it lacked a concurrent control arm; (2) as a result, the Company would have difficulty demonstrating that the duration of response endpoint was attributable to UGN-102; (3) UroGen failed to heed the FDA's warnings about the study design used to support a drug application for UGN-102; (4) as a result of the foregoing, there was a substantial risk that the NDA for UGN-102 would not be approved; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased UroGen securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please HERE or contact us at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Must Respond to Fritzco SAC by July 28 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRITZCO LLC, LOS GATOS-SARATOGA COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND RECREATION, and THE LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL M. SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP (D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS), Case No. 1:21-cv-10432-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered a joint stipulated civil case management and scheduling order: The Plaintiff Los Gatos-Saratoga Community Education and Recreation will file its Second Amended Complaint by June 20, 2025. The Defendants will respond to the Second Amended Complaint by July 28, 2025. If Defendants respond by filing a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's opposition will be due by Aug. 28, 2025. The Defendants reply will be due by Sept. 18, 2025. All expert discovery, including expert depositions, shall be completed no later than 90 days from the close of fact discovery. Verizon is a multinational communications technology company headquartered in New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qFejus at no extra charge.[CC] VERTIV CORP: Torok Loses Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE TOROK, v. VERTIV CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-01645-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order denying motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's counsel had a duty to vet plaintiff before advancing him as the class representative and utterly failed to do so. Counsel should have done a better job. Because of the plaintiff's criminal history, he is unfit to serve in a fiduciary capacity and his motion to represent a class is denied. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action in February 2024, alleging that the defendant failed to provide the meal and rest breaks and overtime pay required by California's Labor Code. The Plaintiff Torok worked for Vertiv from October 2018 to August 2023 as a "Customer Engineer III." Vertiv produces commercial and industrial infrastructure (power and thermal management systems for data centers, for example) and provides onsite service and maintenance of the same. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u2yh11 at no extra charge.[CC] VEVOR STORE: Tucker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ HENRY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VEVOR STORE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04480 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.vevor.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Vevor Store LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK MURPHY, as guardian of Olivia Murphy, MARIA MURPHY, as guardian of Olivia Murphy, BERNITA GIGOWSKI, as guardian of Sarah Melissa Gigowski, DEBORAH HOLLAND, as guardian of Sean Holland, LUANNE SELLS, as guardian of Tyler Raymond Sells, and SUZANNE PREVATT TRUEBLOOD, as guardian of Austin James Trueblood, v. VILLAGES AT NOAH'S LANDING, LTD, NOAH'S ARK OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., ATALA CONSULTING, LLC, ROYAL AMERICAN MANAGEMENT INC., and CONSTANCE BAMBERG, Case No. 8:25-cv-00022-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Tom Barber entered an case management and scheduling order as follows: Third Party Joinder/Amend Pleading: July 1, 2025 Plaintiff Expert Disclosure: December 1, 2025 Defendant Expert Disclosure: February 1, 2026 Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: March 15, 2026 Discovery Cut-Off: July 15, 2026 Class Certification Motion: August 1, 2025 Summary Judgment, Daubert, and other Dispositive Motions: September 1, 2026 The parties shall participate in court-annexed mediation on or before February 1, 2026. The case is set for Jury trial, along with other civil and criminal matters, during the term commencing February 2027 before the Honorable Tom Barber in Courtroom 14A, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida A pretrial conference will be held before Judge Tom Barber, in Courtroom 14A, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida, on Jan. 19, 2027, at 1:30 PM. Villages is a senior living community in Lakeland, Florida, offering a range of housing options and amenities for older adults. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SGVOzU at no extra charge.[CC] VNGR BEVERAGE: $8.9MM Non-Reversionary Payment Initially Approved ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re VNGR Beverage, LLC Litigation, Case No. 4:24-cv-03229-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood s. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all putative Class Members Filing deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion Filing deadline for incentive payment motion Deadline for Class Members to opt-out or object to settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive payment, at least 45 days after the filing of the motion for attorneys' fees and incentive payments Filing deadline for final approval motion Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class notice plan with the edits identified above. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant VNGR Beverage, LLC markets Poppi as "gut healthy" due to its inclusion of prebiotic dietary fiber, but that this representation is misleading, as Poppi actually harms gut health. The Plaintiffs allege that Poppi is harmful due to its low fiber content, high sugar content, and use of agave inulin, a type of prebiotic fiber that, according to Plaintiffs, is less effective for promoting gut health and has been linked to adverse health effects. The Settlement Class is defined as "all persons in the United States who, between January 23, 2020, and the Settlement Notice Date, purchased in the United States, for household use and not for resale or distribution, one or more of the Products." "Products" is defined as "all flavors and package sizes of Poppi's beverages sold between January 23, 2020, and the Settlement Notice Date." The Defendant will make a $8,900,000 non-reversionary payment. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VTjwyy at no extra charge.[CC] VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit in Conn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Voya Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ravarino class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Ravarino, et al. v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al. (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv-01658)(filed December 14, 2021). In this putative class action, the plaintiffs allege that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty in the administration of the Voya 401(k) Savings Plan. The plaintiffs claim that the named defendants did not exercise proper prudence in their management of allegedly poorly performing investment options, including proprietary funds, and passed excessive investment-management and other administrative fees for proprietary and non-proprietary funds onto plan participants. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in self-dealing through the inclusion of the Voya Stable Value Option into the plan offerings and by setting the "crediting rate" for participants' investment in the Stable Value Fund artificially low in relation to Voya's general account investment returns in order to maximize the spread and Voya's profits at the participants' expense. The complaint seeks disgorgement of unjust profits as well as costs incurred. On June 13, 2023, the Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part Voya's motion to dismiss. The court largely dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The remaining claims concern allegations of breaches of the ERISA prohibited transactions rule and a claim for failure to monitor the Voya Small Cap Growth fund. The Company continues to deny the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in New York, New York. VOYAGER DIGITAL: Bankr. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Adversary Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Michael E. Wiles of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the adversary complaint in the lawsuits entitled In re: VOYAGER DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Debtors, Case No. 22-10943 (MEW) (Jointly Administered) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). MICHAEL WYSE, as Plan Administrator for the Voyager Wind-Down Debtor, Plaintiff v. MARK RICHARD FULLER, Defendant, Adv. Pro. No. 24-01454 (S.D.N.Y.). Defendant Mark Richard Fuller has moved to dismiss the adversary complaint that was filed against him by the Plan Administrator under the confirmed plan of reorganization in these cases. The complaint alleges that Mr. Fuller received $1,235,096.44 of preferential transfers during the 90 days that preceded the filing of the Voyager bankruptcy cases. The Plan Administrator alleges that the transfers are voidable under 11 U.S.C. Section 547, and he seeks to recover the value of the voided transfers under 11 U.S.C. Section 550 and to disallow the Defendant's claims under 11 U.S.C. Section 502(d). Section 547 empowers a trustee to avoid preferential transfers if certain conditions are met. Mr. Fuller argues that during the fall of 2022 Voyager made statements about the validity of "ordinary course of business" defenses to preference claims that should be treated as binding admissions of fact and/or that should bind the Plan Administrator by reason of judicial estoppel, and that as a result the complaint against Mr. Fuller should be dismissed. The Plan Administrator does not dispute that the Debtors made the prior statements, but he disputes that the statements are judicial admissions or that the elements of judicial estoppel are present and contends that the prior statements are not binding on the Plan Administrator. For the reasons previously announced by the Court at a hearing held on April 1, 2025, and explained more fully in this Decision, the motion to dismiss is denied. Voyager was a cryptocurrency exchange. Soon after the filing of these cases, at a hearing on July 8, 2022, Judge Wiles asked the Debtor whether customers owned the assets in their accounts or whether some other form of debtor-creditor relationship existed. Voyager's counsel stated that the customers held "cash" accounts at a bank and that those cash accounts belonged to the customers, but that the customer agreements stated that Voyager had full rights of ownership as to cryptocurrencies, so that customers were just general unsecured creditors as to their cryptocurrency claims. On Aug. 5, 2022, Judge Wiles entered a Decision and a separate Order that permitted customers to withdraw cash from accounts at Metropolitan Commercial Bank. Judge Wiles explained that the customer agreements stated that cash accounts would be held in customers' names at Metropolitan Commercial Bank, but that Voyager held all rights of ownership with respect to cryptocurrencies. The Debtor and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors agreed throughout the Voyager case that customers only held the rights of general unsecured creditors with respect to cryptocurrency assets in their accounts. Every proposed plan of reorganization reflected this view, including the plan of reorganization that ultimately was confirmed. Individual customers sometimes asked during court hearings that cryptocurrencies be released to them, but those requests were always opposed by the Debtors and by the Committee and were always denied by the Court based on the plain language of the customers' account agreements. Voyager filed its first proposed plan of reorganization on July 6, 2022, only one day after the commencement of the chapter 11 case. The proposed plan separately classified "Account Holder Claims" and proposed that the holders of such claims would receive pro rata distributions of certain cryptocurrencies, equity in a reorganized company and other rights. The plan stated that the Debtors would retain preference and other avoidance actions to the extent specified in a description of "Retained Causes of Action" that would be filed later. However, Judge Wiles notes, no such schedule ever was filed in connection with that initial plan proposal. The plan also stated that claims held by persons, who had received preferences or other avoidable transfers would be disallowed until the avoidance actions against them had been resolved. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Debtors filed a first amended plan of reorganization and a proposed disclosure statement. These documents essentially proposed the same classification and treatment of Account Holder Claims, and the same proposed identification of Retained Causes of Action, as had been set forth in the original plan. Again, however, no schedule of Retained Causes of Action was filed. On Sept. 21, 2022, a customer named Pierce Robertson filed an objection to the Debtor's proposed disclosure statement and first amended plan. Robertson was the lead plaintiff in a putative class action in the Southern District of Florida against Mark Cuban and others. His objection sought clarification as to how various proposed releases of the Debtors' claims against officers, directors and related parties might affect the class action. Mr. Robertson also argued more generally that the Disclosure Statement should provide a description of claims being released by the Debtors and the values of such claims. At that time, however, the plan on file did not propose to sell, release or otherwise dispose of any preference or other avoidance claims. On Aug. 5, 2022, Judge Wiles approved a set of procedures for the solicitation of bids to purchase the Voyager business and assets. The Debtors conducted a sale process, at the end of which they identified an affiliate of FTX as the winning bidder. The Debtors filed a motion seeking authority to enter into an asset purchase agreement with FTX. The proposed agreement contemplated that FTX would take on Voyager's customers and would buy all preference and other avoidance action claims and other causes of action that Voyager might have against its customers, other than certain Retained Avoidance Actions. The term "Retained Avoidance Actions" was defined as including, among other things, certain identified claims plus "any other Avoidance Action that Purchaser agrees in writing prior to the Closing may be retained by the Debtors." The proposed sale to FTX was to be accomplished through a chapter 11 plan. On Oct. 5, 2022, the Debtors filed a proposed second amended plan of reorganization and a first amended disclosure statement that had been adjusted to reflect the terms of the proposed sale to FTX. The amended plan provided that each customer would have the right to become a customer of FTX and would be entitled to receive a pro rata share of Voyager's cryptocurrency holdings (which would be transferred to FTX) and a pro rata share of certain cash that Voyager ultimately might distribute. Mr. Robertson filed an objection to the FTX agreement on Oct. 10, 2022, and a supplemental objection to the proposed disclosure statement on Oct. 11, 2022. He objected to the proposed FTX agreement to the extent that any claims against insiders and their friends (including Mr. Cuban) were to be sold or released. He also objected that the proposed transfer of claims to FTX appeared to be for no consideration and that they might include claims against Mr. Cuban. The Debtors filed a revised second amended plan and a revised first amended disclosure statement on Oct. 17, 2022. The liquidation analysis that had been attached to the prior version of the disclosure statement was omitted and was replaced by a notation that a revised draft would be forthcoming. The other revisions to the disclosure statement included a new discussion of the proposed sale of avoidance actions to FTX. The Court held a hearing on Oct. 19, 2022 (the "October 19 Hearing") to address the pending motion for authority to enter into the Asset Purchase Agreement and for approval of the proposed Disclosure Statement. The parties stated that they had reached an agreement as to the continuation of the class action in which Mr. Robertson was a party and that all objections by Mr. Robertson had been resolved by those provisions. The parties then proceeded with discussions of the proposed sale agreement with FTX. The Debtors filed further revisions to the proposed disclosure statement on Oct. 20, 2022. The revised disclosure statement included the statement that "[t]he Debtors do not believe that valid Avoidance Actions exist against Account Holders because any transactions with Account Holders were completed in the ordinary course of business consistent with past practices." The liquidation analysis that was attached as Exhibit B to the revised disclosure statement no longer included an estimate of the recoveries on potential avoidance actions. Instead, the liquidation analysis stated that "[l]itigation claim recoveries are assumed to be the same under both the Plan and a Chapter 7 Liquidation and are not included for comparative purposes of this presentation." The proposed second amended plan of reorganization continued to provide that the Debtors would have the right to pursue avoidance actions that were to be identified in a Schedule of Retained Causes of Action. The Debtors resumed their sale efforts after the collapse of FTX. The new high bidder was an affiliate of Binance, another cryptocurrency exchange. On Dec. 21 and 22, 2022, the Debtors filed a motion for authority to enter into a sale agreement with a U.S. subsidiary of Binance and filed a revised proposed plan and disclosure statement. The proposed Binance agreement (like the prior FTX agreement) contemplated a migration of customers and a sale of avoidance actions against customers, with the exception of Retained Avoidance Actions. Notably, however, the revised Disclosure Statement deleted the language that had been included in the prior FTX-related disclosure statement regarding the potential validity of avoidance actions against Account Holders and whether the "ordinary course" defenses would be applicable to such claims. The new version of the disclosure statement instead argued only that the Binance proposal was the highest offer that the Debtors had received. The revised Plan also made clear that a Wind-Down Debtor would obtain, and have the right to pursue, any Cause of Action that was not transferred to Binance. The definition of "Cause of Action" included all claims under chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, including preference claims. Further amendments to the proposed plan and disclosure statement were filed on Jan. 8, 2023. The Debtors also filed a response to various objections that had been filed to the proposed Binance sale and to the sufficiency of the proposed disclosure statement. None of these objections or responses addressed the proposed sale of avoidance actions or the merits of such claims. Judge Wiles approved the sufficiency of the information in the modified disclosure statement by Order dated Jan. 13, 2023. Another amended version of the plan of reorganization was filed on Feb. 28, 2023. It provided that a Plan Administrator would be appointed to perform certain duties on behalf of the Wind-Down Debtor, including the pursuit of potential preference claims. The revised plan also contemplated a liquidation of assets by the Plan Administrator if the Binance transaction failed to close by a designated deadline. Additional amendments to the plan of reorganization and to the Plan Supplement were filed thereafter, but those amendments did not change any of the provisions that are relevant to the present motion. The sale to Binance did not close, and no avoidance actions were sold to Binance. The parties proceeded instead with the alternative liquidation that the plan contemplated. The Plan Administrator completed his review of potential preference claims and eventually filed preference actions against 74 former Account Holders, including Mr. Fuller. In his Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Fuller argues that the Debtors' prior statements about "ordinary course" defenses were statements of fact that constituted "judicial admissions" that should bind the Wind-Down Debtor, thereby, foreclosing any preference claims. Alternatively, he contends that Judge Wiles relied on the Debtors' prior statements in certain rulings that Judge Wiles made and that those statements, therefore, should be binding on the Debtors (and on the Wind-Down Debtor) under principles of judicial estoppel. The Plan Administrator disputes each of these contentions. He acknowledges that Mr. Fuller has the right to assert "ordinary course" defenses, but he contends that the Debtors' prior statements were broad statements of legal conclusions (not factual assertions), that they were not unequivocal statements of fact in the context of all of the proceedings that took place, that they were not the basis of any rulings by the Court, and that in any event the Wind-Down Debtor and Plan Administrator are not bound by what the Debtors might have previously said. Judge Wiles finds that the statements identified by Mr. Fuller do not constitute "judicial admissions" that are binding on the Plan Administrator for two reasons: (i) the Debtors' prior statements were conclusory remarks about the application of legal standards to unspecified facts and claims, rather than concessions about the facts of particular cases, and (ii) the Debtors took different positions at different times, and in context their earlier statements were superseded and should not be treated as binding and unequivocal statements that foreclose a preference claim. Judge Wiles also finds, among other things, that "judicial estoppel" does not bar the assertion of the preference claim, and that Mr. Fuller's arguments about the need to protect the "integrity" of Court-approved disclosure statements do not warrant dismissal. For these reasons, the Court denies the motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/9t25uwj5 from PacerMonitor.com. Darren T. Azman -- dazman@mwe.com -- John J. Calandra -- jcalandra@mwe.com -- Joseph B. Evans -- jbevans@mwe.com -- Charles R. Gibbs -- crgibbs@mwe.com -- Grayson Williams -- gwilliams@mwe.com -- Gregg Steinman -- gsteinman@mwe.com -- McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, in New York, Counsel to Michael Wyse, as the Plan Administrator for the Voyager Wind-Down Debtor. Marianna Udem -- mudem@askllp.com -- Brigette G. McGrath -- bmcgrath@askllp.com -- Kara E. Casteel -- kcasteel@askllp.com -- ASK LLP, in New York, Counsel to Michael Wyse, as the Plan Administrator for the Voyager Wind-Down Debtor. Edward L. Schnitzer -- edward.schnitzer@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, in New York, Counsel to Defendant Mark Richard Fuller. Brian J. Koenig -- brian.koenig@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY JESSEN PC, LLO, in Omaha, Nebraska, Counsel to Defendant Mark Richard Fuller. VROOM INC: NY Court Dismisses All Claims in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Vroom, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission all claims in the securities suit pending in the Southern District of New York have been dismissed. Beginning in March 2021, multiple putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by certain of the Company's stockholders against the Company and certain of the Company's officers alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuits were captioned Zawatsky et al. v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-2477; Holbrook v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-2551; and Hudda v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-3296. All three of the lawsuits asserted similar claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5. In each case, the named plaintiff(s) sought to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during a period from June 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021 (in the case of Holbrook and Hudda), or November 11, 2020 to March 3, 2021 (in the case of Zawatsky). In August 2021, the Court consolidated the cases under the new name In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-2477, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and ordered a consolidated amended complaint to be filed. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint that reasserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Company and certain of the Company's officers, and added new claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act against the Company, certain of its officers, certain of its directors, and the underwriters of the Company's September 2020 secondary offering. On March 19, 2025, the Court entered an order granting Vroom's motion to dismiss all claims. WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over $3 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that the Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC will pay a $3 million cash-and-credits settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over alleged age-based discrimination in the team's advertisement and sale of certain event tickets. The Washington Nationals class action settlement received preliminary court approval on May 21, 2025. The settlement covers anyone who, while 40 years old or older at the time of purchase, bought at least one single-game ticket to a Nationals home game during the 2023 or 2024 Major League Baseball regular season, directly from the Nationals website, the team's MLB.com website, by phone or at the National's box office, between March 29, 2023 and March 28, 2024; who paid for a seat in a discount-eligible section of the stadium (i.e. -- the Baseline Box, Baseline Reserved, Infield Box, Corner, Scoreboard Pavilion and Upper Gallery); and who was unable to receive the advertised discount due to not having access to the team's "Millennial" or "Young Professional" discount because of their age. Should the Nationals settlement receive final approval from the court, class members are eligible to receive ticket credit as compensation sent directly to their MLB.com account. Court documents state that the value of the ticket credit will be, whichever is the greater sum between $18 or twice the amount paid for each settlement-covered ticket purchase. No action will be required by Nationals settlement class members to receive this compensation. Alternatively, class members who wish to receive a cash payout -- which court documents say will be worth 62.2 percent of the value of original, settlement-covered ticket purchases -- instead of ticket credit will, upon final approval of the deal, be able to receive such by submitting a timely, valid claim form by mail or online through the court-approved Washington Nationals Baseball Club settlement website once it is launched. ClassAction.org will update this page if and when the official Washington Nationals Baseball Club settlement website is launched. It is important to note that both forms of settlement compensation may be adjusted on a pro rata basis depending on the total number of claims filed or ticket credits distributed, so as to satisfy the court-approved funds of $3,000,000 equivalent value for ticket credits and $800,000 for monetary reimbursement. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement at a hearing on June 18, 2025. The class action suit against the Washington Nationals alleged that the National League East team's "millennial" and "young professional" ticket discounts, available to consumers ages 21 to 39, of up to 30 percent off were discriminatory on the basis of age, such that they violated Washington D.C.'s human rights law. [GN] WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- WEBTOON Entertainment Inc. continues to defend itself against a putative stockholder class action lawsuit in the Central 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. On September 5, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, its directors, and the underwriters of the IPO in the federal court for the Central District of California, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the IPO Prospectus and the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1(File No. 333-279863) relating to our IPO (the "Registration Statement"). The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On October 10, 2024, the court ordered that the defendants are not required to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, deferring any response until after the court rules on any motion by a purported class member to serve as lead plaintiff. On December 12, 2024, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On February 3, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on March 4, 2025, the Company, its directors, and the underwriters of the IPO moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 11, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion to dismiss, and on March 18, 2025, the Company, its directors, and the underwriters filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation nor estimate any range of possible losses. On November 15, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against the Company's directors, naming the Company as a nominal defendant, in the federal court for the Central District of California. The complaint focuses on the same allegations as the putative securities class action described above, including that the Company's Registration Statement was materially false or misleading. The complaint includes claims for violations of Section 14 (a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution under Section 11(f) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 31D of the Exchange Act of 1934. On January 13, 2025, by stipulation of the parties, the court ordered the shareholder derivative lawsuit stayed pending resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss in the putative securities class action. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company can neither predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation nor estimate any range of possible losses. WELLNOW URGENT: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit For $4.4 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ News.Law reports that WellNow Urgent Care (formerly Five Star Urgent Care), a network of walk-in urgent care clinics in New York, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio, has agreed to settle a class action data breach lawsuit for $4.4 million. The lawsuit was filed in response to a cyberattack and data breach detected on or around April 25, 2023, when ransomware was used to encrypt files. The ransomware group obtained names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, state ID/driver's license information, health and insurance information, banking information, and biometric data. [GN] WELLPOINT WASHINGTON: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mendoza v. Wellpoint Washington Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00497 (W.D. Wash., Filed April 12, 2024), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend class certification deadlines: -- All motions related to class July 2, 2025 certification discovery must be filed by: -- Discovery on class certification July 16, 2025 issues must be completed by: -- The Plaintiff must file her July 30, 2025 motion for class certification by: The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).[CC] WESTECH SECURITY: Filing for Collective & Class Cert Due July 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keith Rodriguez, and others similarly situated, v. Westech Security and Investigation et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00123-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order as follows: -- By June 23, 2025, the parties shall file their joint letter and proposed case management plan. -- By July 14, 2025, the Plaintiff shall move for collective and class certification. Westech provides expert security risk and threat consulting services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8tmt7p at no extra charge.[CC] WILHELMINA INT'L: Merits Discovery Ongoing in Labor Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Wilhelmina International, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the class action lawsuit filed by former models is in the merits discovery stage. On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation included other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26, 2017. The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint. On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and others, including Roberta Little (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation. The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017. Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on May 10, 2018. Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case. Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. On July 12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim against Little. On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and Little, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske. By Order dated May 8, 2020 (the "Class Certification Order"), the Court denied class certification in the Pressley case, denied class certification with respect to the breach of contract and alleged unpaid usage claims, granted class certification as to the New York Labor Law causes of action asserted by Vretman, Palomares, and Trotter, and declined to rule on Wilhelmina's motions for summary judgment, denying them without prejudice to be re-filed at a later date. Currently the parties are engaging in merits discovery. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation and Pressley Litigation are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the actions. WINDY GATES: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Cantwell Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WINDY GATES, SOHO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02997 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.balthazarny.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Windy Gates, Soho, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ZUFFA LLC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------- Berger Montague, a leading national plaintiffs' law firm, filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Zuffa LLC, TKO Group Holdings, Inc., and Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc., the owners and operators of the Ultimate Fighting Championship ("UFC"), on behalf of professional mixed martial arts ("MMA") fighters who competed for MMA promotions other than the UFC. The named plaintiff in the suit is Phil Davis, a professional MMA fighter currently under contract with a would-be rival MMA promotion. "The suit alleges that the UFC impairs the ability of would-be UFC competitors to attract a critical mass of top-level MMA fighters necessary to compete with the UFC at the top tier of the sport," said Firm Chairman and a lead lawyer for the fighters, Eric Cramer. "We intend to prove that the UFC engaged in a predatory scheme to undermine would be competitors to the UFC, which the suit claims had the effect of maintaining and enhancing the UFC's dominance, and thereby impairing the careers and pay not just of the UFC's own fighters, but also of professional MMA fighters like Mr. Davis competing for MMA promotions across the MMA industry." The lawsuit seeks no money damages. Instead, it seeks an injunction to prevent the UFC from continuing its allegedly illegal scheme. By shutting down the UFC's allegedly anticompetitive behavior, the suit intends to create the conditions for free and fair competition among professional MMA promotions, which in turn, would bolster the careers and pay of professional MMA fighters across the sport. "I am proud to stand up for professional MMA fighters to unlock the UFC's stranglehold on the entire sport," said Phil Davis. The lawsuit seeks to build on the success of Berger Montague's class action lawsuit against the UFC, which resulted in an historic $375 million settlement for a class of over 1100 former UFC fighters, following a ten-year legal battle for economic justice. Berger Montague and Mr. Davis are committed to continuing the struggle to vindicate the rights of professional MMA fighters outside of the UFC who have been harmed by the UFC's allegedly illegal scheme. For inquires, contact Eric Cramer, Michael Dell'Angelo or Rob Maysey. Berger Montague's legal team also includes Joshua P. Davis, F. Paul Bland, Patrick F. Madden, and Kyla Gibboney. Berger Montague also represents proposed classes of UFC fighters who fought for the UFC between July 1, 2017 and the present in Johnson v. Zuffa, LLC, et al. and Cirkonovs v. Zuffa, LLC, et al. The Johnson and Cirkunovs cases seek damages and injunctive relief to stop the UFC's alleged anticompetitive conduct on behalf of UFC fighters. Read more about these cases at www.bergermontague.com/UFC. Berger Montague is one of the nation's preeminent law firms focusing on complex civil litigation, class actions, and mass torts in federal and state courts throughout the United States. The firm is active in the fields of antitrust, commercial litigation, consumer protection, defective products, environmental law, employment law, securities, and whistleblower cases, among many other practice areas. For more than 50 years, Berger Montague has played lead roles in precedent-setting cases and has recovered over $60 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented. Berger Montague is headquartered in Philadelphia and has offices in Chicago; Malvern, PA; Minneapolis; San Diego; San Francisco; Toronto, Canada; Washington, D.C., and Wilmington, DE. Contact: Amy Wall-Monte (215) 875-3021 awallmonte@bm.net [GN] ********* 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 ***