250610.mbx

250610.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 115 Headlines ABG JUICY COUTURE: Beattie Sues Over Deceptive Junk Fees ADDSHOPPERS INC: Lineberry Bid for Class Certification Tossed ADVANCED MEDICAL: Amontos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ASPYR MEDIA: Class Settlement Conference Extended to July 25 AW DISTRIBUTING: Kendrick Suit Transferred to D. Kansas BMO BANK: Tasker Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation BURLINGTON COAT: Maldonado Suit Removed to C.D. California CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Oliviero Class Suit COMMUNITY COLLECTION: Class Cert Filing in Platt Due Jan. 29, 2026 CROCS INC: Bid to Consolidate Carreta & Shah Suits Pending ENOVIX CORP: Settles Consolidated Labor Suit in California Court HANESBRANDS INC: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for June 13 HOME DEPOT: Maciel Suit Removed to E.D. California HYATT CORPORATION: Hasty Suit Removed to N.D. California IC SYSTEM: Lezark Loses Bid for Class Certification LEXISNEXIS RISK: Belmonte Sues Over Data Breach LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Riganian Class Suit LOTTERY.COM INC: Filing of Reply Briefs Due Sept. 12 MALIBU BOATS: Continues to Defend Customer Class Suit in Delaware MALIBU BOATS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York MICROSOFT CORP: Brockman's Deposition Tossed w/o Prejudice MICROSTRATEGY INC: Faces Securities Suit over Crypto Business MW POLAR FOODS: Beal Sues Over False Advertising NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Bid for Class Cert Due May 15, 2026 NEXTRACKER INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit NORTH EASTON SAVINGS: Concannon Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts NU RIDE: Plan Settles Ohio Securities Suit NU RIDE: RIDE Investor's Chapter 11 Claims Disallowed NU RIDE: Suit vs. DiamondPeak Directors Remain Pending O'REILLY AUTO: McMillon Suit Removed to S.D. California OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Rains Suit Removed to E.D. California OMOTAYO ALLI: Stralchuk Suit Seeks to Certify Class OPENAI INC: Bid for Additional CIR ESI Custodians Tossed OPENAI INC: Brockman's Deposition Tossed w/o Prejudice in AG OPENAI INC: Parties in Daily News Suit Must Confer by June 13 OPENAI INC: Parties in Davis Suit Must Confer by June 13 OPENAI INC: Parties in Intercept Suit Must Confer by June 13 OPENAI INC: Parties in Millette Suit Must Confer by June 13 OPENAI INC: Parties in Raw Story Suit Must Confer by June 13 OPENAI INC: Parties in Silverman Suit Must Confer by June 13 OPENAI INC: Parties in Tremblay Suit Mus Confer by June 13 OPENAI INC: Parties Must in Chabon Must Confer by June 13 ORLANDO HEALTH: Class Cert Filing in W.W. Suit Extended to Oct. 1 ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend California Labor Class Suit OUTSET MEDICAL: Response to Amended Complaint Due August 14 PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Continues to Defend Alvarez Securities Suit PARSEC INC: Class Cert Hearing in Mealancon Continued to Dec. 3 PLAYAGS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Nevada POSIGEN DEVELOPER: Class Cert Bid in Weingrad Due Jan. 26, 2026 PPG INDUSTRIES: Kassem Suit Removed to C.D. California PROCTER & GAMBLE: Alzaidi Sues Over False Claims of Restoring REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Calif. SEYBOTH TEAM: Class Cert Bid Deadline in Iudiciani Suit Vacated SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Stockholder Class Suit Stayed SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 16, 2026 TWITTER INC: Bid to Extend Class Certification Deadline Tossed UNITED PARCEL: Espinoza Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina UNITED SEATING: Tapia Suit Removed to S.D. California UNITED STATES: Chapter1 LLC Sues Over Illegally Imposed Tariffs ********* ABG JUICY COUTURE: Beattie Sues Over Deceptive Junk Fees -------------------------------------------------------- Katlyn Beattie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ABG JUICY COUTURE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04463 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2025), is brought seeking monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant arising from its deceptive addition of junk fees to consumers' shopping carts. When consumers browse products on Juicy, Juicy advertises the price of its retail items, along with an advertisement for either free or flat rate shipping. Those pricing representations are false, however, because Juicy surreptitiously adds junk fees to consumer purchases, including a so-called "Shipping Protection" fees. Thousands of e-commerce customers like Plaintiff have been assessed hidden shipping charges for which they did not bargain due to Juicy's deceptive tactics. By unfairly obscuring their true shipping costs, Defendant deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true shipping charges. To wit, other major e-commerce sites do not assess such a fee. The Plaintiff seeks damages and, among other remedies, public injunctive relief that fairly allows consumers to decide whether they will pay shipping costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff used Defendant's website, juicycouture.com, to purchase over $150 of clothing on September 1, 2024 to be delivered to her residence in Minneapolis, Minnesota. ABG Juicy Couture, Inc. is a clothing retailer headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah M. Levin, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 280-4783 Email: slevin@kalielgold.com Email: arosenberg@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AK 72201 Phone: (317) 695-1712 Email: tyler@jefirm.com ADDSHOPPERS INC: Lineberry Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABBY LINEBERRY, et al., v. ADDSHOPPERS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01996-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order dismissing case in part and otherwise denying motion for class certification. Thie case is a proposed privacy class action. The plaintiffs allege that when they visited certain websites and put an item in their virtual shopping cart, the websites used tracking technology from a company called AddShoppers to send them targeted marketing emails, even though the named plaintiffs never provided their email addresses or any other personal information to those websites. The lawsuit was filed in April 2023. There were originally four named plaintiffs -- Oather McClung, Greg Dessart, Terry Cook, and Abby Lineberry. They sued three named defendants -- AddShoppers and two brand partners, Presidio Brands and Peet's Coffee—alleging various privacy violations. Specifically, they asserted claims based on the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the California Computer Access and Data Fraud Act (CDAFA), the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), common law invasion of privacy, statutory larceny, trespass to chattels, and unjust enrichment. Thus, three potential classes were still in play. First, a Rule 23(b)(3) class against Peet's, represented by Cordero, which would include "[a]ll natural persons who, while in California, visited Peet's website for whom AddShoppers collected their detailed browsing activity." Second, a Rule 23(b)(3) class against AddShoppers, represented by Cordero and Lineberry, which would include "[a]ll natural persons who, while in California, visited Peet's or Dia's websites for whom AddShoppers collected their detailed browsing activity." And third, a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class against AddShoppers, represented by Lineberry and Cordero, which would include "all natural persons who, while in California, visited a website for whom AddShoppers collected their detailed browsing activity." AddShoppers is a digital marketing company that helps online retailers send targeted emails to potential customers. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kTuLXW at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCED MEDICAL: Amontos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Medical Management, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Amontos, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Advanced Medical Management, Inc., Case No. 25STCV15632 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Advanced Medical Management, Inc. (AMM) -- https://www.amm.cc/ -- is a full-service management services organization providing healthcare business management and consulting services since 1995.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sage S. Stone, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 ASPYR MEDIA: Class Settlement Conference Extended to July 25 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALACHI MICKELONIS, JOSEPH ALFILANI, JACOB ALVAMELVILLE, MICAIAH FLORES, MATTHEW GORKA, JARED HILLIARD, CHARLES KIRK, DAVID KIRKLAND, YALE LIEBOWITZ, JACOB MUELLER, KEVIN MUNOZ, COLEBIE NIEDERMEIER, JOSHUA PALMER, BRYCE PHILLIPS, CHRISTOPHER SOUSA, ROLANDO VAZQUEZ, ADRIAN VILLA, BRIAN WALSH, and NICHOLAS YEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASPYR MEDIA, INC. and DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:23-cv-01220-MWC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting stipulation to extend motion practice deadlines: 1. Trial remains on : Sept. 22, 2025 2. Final pretrial conference & Sept. 5, 2025 hearing on motions in limine remains on: 3. Last date to hear motions is: July 11, 2025 4. The Defendants' motion to June 2, 2025 dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and in the alternative to re-set case deadlines: 5. Opposition to motion to dismiss: June 16, 2025 6. Reply in support of motion to June 23, 2025 Dismiss: 7. The Plaintiffs' motion to June 2, 2025 reconsider ruling denying class certification: 8. Opposition to motion to June 16, 2025 Reconsider: 9. Reply in support of motion June 23, 2025 to reconsider: 10. Deadline to complete settlement July 25, 2025 conference is: 11. Trial Filings (first round) Aug. 4, 2025 remain on: Aspyr is an American video game developer and publisher. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iOONyI at no extra charge.[CC] AW DISTRIBUTING: Kendrick Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Kendrick, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Jonathan M. Kendrick, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AW Distributing, Inc., AW Product Sales & Marketing, Inc., Norazza, Inc., Technical Chemical Co., Micro Electronics, Inc., Micro Center Sales Corporation, International Product Sourcing Group, Inc., The ODP Corporation, ODP Business Solutions, LLC Office Depot, LLC, Walmart, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.L.C., Case No. 4:24-cv-00596 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on May 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02287-JWB-ADM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. AW Distributing, Inc. is a global distributor of consumer products specializes in supplying industrial, chemical, medical, and energy products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq. Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th St. Prairie Village, KS 66208 Phone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 261-7564 Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com sbradshaw@midwest-law.com BMO BANK: Tasker Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation --------------------------------------------------- John Tasker, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all California residents v. BMO BANK, N.A., an Illinois corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-01304 (C.D. Cal., May 28, 2025), is brought to prevent Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of California residents in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Through the Trackers, the Third Parties collect Website users' information including IP addresses, device and browser type, screen resolution, operating system, pages visited, time spent on each page, scroll depth, mouse movements, clicks, referring URLs, unique identifiers (such as cookies and advertising IDs), geographic location based on IP, user session duration, form interactions, and behavioral data used for profiling, ad targeting, cross-device identification, and/or real time bidding (the "User Information"). Defendant and the Third Parties then use the User Information for hyper-targeted marketing and advertising and to generate revenue. Because the Trackers capture and transmit users' IP addresses, full page URLs, referrer headers, device fingerprints, and other non content signaling metadata, they qualify as "pen registers" and/or "trap and trace devices." These trackers operate without user engagement and silently intercept routing and addressing information for commercial purposes. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the Trackers being installed, executed, embedded or injected on their devices and did not expect disclosure and/or monetization of their information. By installing and using the Trackers without prior consent and without a court order, Defendant violated CIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was in California when he visited the Website. BMO BANK, N.A. owns and operates a website, www.bmo.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Manning, Esq. MANNING LAW, APC 26100 Towne Centre Drive Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Phone: (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 Phone: (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 Phone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com BURLINGTON COAT: Maldonado Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Samuel Maldonado, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION; BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE OF SAN BERNARDINO, INC.; ASC STAFFING GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2509452 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01307. The Complaint seeks damages and penalties for seven alleged causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; meal period violations; rest period violations; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; failure to pay wages timely upon termination; wage statement violations; and violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. David J. Rashe, Esq. Hailey A. Phelan, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com david.rashe@morganlewis.com hailey.phelan@morganlewis.com CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Oliviero Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for May 19, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Oliviero stockholder class in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company and James Oliviero have been named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), which was filed on April 5, 2024. The action is styled In re Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-02613-PAE (the "Securities Class Action"). On June 21, 2024, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class and approved his choice of lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on August 23, 2024, which alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions, and that James Oliviero is named as a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of its common stock between March 10, 2021 and December 15, 2023, and seeks, among other things, monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 23, 2024, and the motion was fully briefed in February 2025. On May 19, 2025, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice and entered final judgment in favor of the Company and James Oliviero. The lead plaintiff has thirty days from May 19, 2025 to appeal the judgment. To the extent lead plaintiff appeals the judgment, the Company intends to defend itself and James Oliviero vigorously. Checkpoint acquires, develops, and commercializes novel skin-cancer treatments. COMMUNITY COLLECTION: Class Cert Filing in Platt Due Jan. 29, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK PLATT, on his own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, v. COMMUNITY COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01822-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall comply with the following deadlines: a. All fact discovery shall be completed by Dec. 29, 2025. b. The Plaintiff's class certification motion shall be filed by Jan. 29, 2026. The Defendant's Response to said motion shall be filed by March 5, 2026. The Plaintiff's Reply in support of class certification shall be filed by March 30, 2026. 2. This case is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore-Wells for settlement purposes. Judge Moore-Wells will contact counsel to initiate the settlement process. 3. Counsel are referred to Judge Younge's operating procedures for further information: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/judges- info/district-court-judges/john-milton-younge. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FymyEB at no extra charge.[CC] CROCS INC: Bid to Consolidate Carreta & Shah Suits Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Crocs 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 motion to consolidate the Carreta and Shah class suits are pending before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On January 22, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit titled Carretta v. Crocs, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00096, was filed in the District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its current officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 3, 2022 and October 28, 2024, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements related to the Company's wholesaler inventory and its alleged impact on the Company's revenue. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, an award of costs and expenses, and other unspecified relief. On March 21, 2025, a second putative class action lawsuit titled Shah v. Crocs, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00356, was also filed in the District Court for the District of Delaware based on the same allegations as the Carretta complaint. Motions to consolidate the two actions are pending before the court. On April 22, 2025, the court entered the parties' stipulation in which they agreed to confer on deadlines to file the amended complaint and motion to dismiss after the lead plaintiff is appointed. Briefing for motions to appoint a lead plaintiff is complete, but a lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed. The Company and its directors and officers intend to vigorously defend these actions in all respects. The Company is not in a position to assess the likelihood of any potential loss or adverse effect on its financial condition or to estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any, from these actions at this time. Crocs, a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices in Broomfield, Colorado, is a casual lifestyle footwear brand.[BN] ENOVIX CORP: Settles Consolidated Labor Suit in California Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enovix Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2024, that in November 2024, parties in a consolidated labor suit entered into settlement agreements resolving the claims, and plaintiff dismissed without prejudice a putative class action claims. The court approved a final settlement in March 2025. On March 8, 2023, a former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against Enovix in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. The case is captioned "Kody Walker v. Enovix Corporation," Case No. 23CV028923. It alleges, among other things, on a putative class-wide basis, that the failed to pay minimum wages, overtime and sick time wages, failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, failed to provide meal and rest periods, and issued inaccurate wage statements under the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. This was consolidated in April 2024. Enovix Corporation manufactures Lithium-ion, or Li-ion, battery cells based in California. HANESBRANDS INC: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ Hanesbrands 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 United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina has scheduled the Toussaint class suit settlement final approval hearing on June 13, 2025. The Company is named in a putative class action in connection with the previously disclosed ransomware incident, entitled Toussaint et al. v. HanesBrands,[sic] Inc. This lawsuit was filed on April 27, 2023 and is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and follows the consolidation of two previously pending lawsuits, entitled Roman v. Hanes Brands,[sic] Inc., filed October 7, 2022, and Toussaint v. HanesBrands,[sic] Inc., filed October 14, 2022. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code. The pending lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary and injunctive relief. On April 2, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. If approved by the Court, the settlement generally provides for class members to claim reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket losses related to the ransomware incident (limited to an aggregate cap of $100,000), as well as a choice of one of the following three forms of additional relief (with no aggregate cap): (1) two years of credit and identity monitoring services; (2) a one-time use credit for purchase of products on the www.hanes.com website; or (3) a cash payment. The Company had also agreed to undertake certain injunctive relief, and to pay an agreed upon amount of attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards to the plaintiffs, if approved by the Court. On November 5, 2024, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court has scheduled the final approval hearing for June 13, 2025. The Company doesn't expect this settlement, if finally approved, to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations. Hanesbrands Inc. and its subsidiaries is a global leader in branded everyday apparel in the Americas, Australia, Europe and Asia under some of the world's strongest apparel brands, including Hanes, Champion, Bonds, Bali, Maidenform, Bras N Things, Playtex, Wonderbra, Gear for Sports, Berlei, Comfortwash, Alternative and JMS/Just My Size. The company designs, manufactures, sources and sells a broad range of innerwear apparel, such as T-shirts, bras, panties, shapewear, underwear and socks, as well as activewear products that are manufactured or sourced in our low-cost global supply chain. HOME DEPOT: Maciel Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Steven Maciel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC; and DOES 1-100, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0005354 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01492-CKD. At the time Plaintiff's employment with Defendant was terminated on November 24, 2024, Plaintiff was working an average of 40 hours per week and earning $20.60 per hour, which equates to a weekly compensation amount of $824.00. Plaintiff's lost wages for the 26.4 weeks that have passed since the termination of his employment is approximately $21,754. This amount does not include the additional amounts Plaintiff seeks for the alleged failure to pay him all wages owed, the alleged failure to pay him overtime, the alleged denial of meal breaks and Plaintiff's claim for penalties.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gary T. Lafayette, Esq. Brian H. Chun, Esq. SANDERS ROBERTS LLP 1300 Clay Street, Suite 810 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 357-4600 Facsimile: (415) 357-4605 Email: glafayette@sandersroberts.com bchun@sandersroberts.com HYATT CORPORATION: Hasty Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bradley J. Hasty, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HYATT CORPORATION dba HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-25-624528 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-04516. The Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action against Defendant in his representative action Complaint for penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), for the following alleged Labor Code violations: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Provide Lawful Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Violation of Labor Code (inaccurate wage statements); Violation of Labor Code (timely payment of wage during employment); Violation of Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code (waiting time penalties); and Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses under Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian P. Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com - and - Michael Afar, Esq. Sofya Perelshteyn, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: mafar@seyfarth.com sperelshteyn@seyfarth.com IC SYSTEM: Lezark Loses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY LEZARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00403-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order denying the Plaintiff Jeffrey Lezark's motion for class certification. The putative class action case arises from a debt collection letter that ICS sent to Mr. Lezark seeking to collect on a medical debt. He seeks certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of a class of individuals consisting of: "All individuals [(i)] in the state of Pennsylvania who, [(ii)] within the applicable statute of limitations, [(iii)] received a letter from the Defendant in which the Defendant claimed it was authorized to refer a medical debt to an attorney, [(iv)] incurred said debt from a medical provider that entered into a contract with Defendant in which the provider elected [NLAR] and/or litigation referral, and [(v)] incurred such debt for personal, family, and/or household purposes." The Proposed Class consists of at least 15,083 individuals. Mr. Lezark also seeks certification of an alternative class (the "Proposed Alternative Class") if the Court determines that the Proposed Class cannot be certified. The Proposed Alternative Class consists of "All individuals who: signed, dated, and returned the Claim Form Questionnaire; checked the first, second, third, fourth, and/or fifth box on the Claim Form Questionnaire; and did not indicate that they failed to receive or read the 540 Letter." There are at least 747 individuals in the Proposed Alternative Class. IC is a nationally recognized debt recovery agency. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rcq9IW at no extra charge.[CC] LEXISNEXIS RISK: Belmonte Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- Emerson Belmonte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02943-SDG (N.D. Ga., May 28, 2025), is brought arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information, on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in May 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). On May 24, 2025, Defendant issued a public disclosure about the Data Breach and began notifying individuals whose Private Information was impacted. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant admits that Private Information was accessed by unauthorized individuals, though it provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their data to the Defendant. The Defendant is a data analytics provider that offers customers solutions to manage risk, make better decisions, and improve operations across various industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Phone: (770) 227-6375 Fax: (770) 227-6373 Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Riganian Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- LiveRamp Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Riganian class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 24, 2025, a purported class action styled Riganian et al v. LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. and LiveRamp, Inc. (Case No. 4:25-cv-824-JST) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and LiveRamp, Inc., alleging claims based on the California Constitution, the common law protections against intrusion upon seclusion, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Federal Wiretap Act and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit seeks certification of classes of California and national consumers, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other relief (including injunctive and declaratory relief). The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously, and, because it is still in its preliminary stages, it has not yet determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on its financial position or results of operations. LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. -- https://liveramp.com/ -- formerly known as Acxiom Corporation, is a San Francisco, California-based SaaS company that offers a data connectivity platform whose services include data onboarding, the transfer of offline data online for marketing purposes.[BN] LOTTERY.COM INC: Filing of Reply Briefs Due Sept. 12 ---------------------------------------------------- Lottery.com 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 21, 2025, that the defendants' reply briefs for the Preston Million class suit is due on September 17, 2025. On August 19, 2022, Preston Million filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Class Action Complaint") against the Company and certain former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York (the "SDNY"), styled Preston Million, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a Trident Acquisitions Corp., Anthony DiMatteo, Matthew Clemenson and Ryan Dickinson (Case No. 1:22-cv-07111-JLR). The Class Action Complaint alleged violations by all defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), U.S.C. § 78u-4 et seq. (collectively "Federal Securities Laws"). On November 18, 2022, the SNDY ordered the appointment of RTD Bros, LLC, Todd Benn, Tom Benn and Tomasz Rzedian (collectively "Lottery Investor Group") as lead plaintiff and Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP as lead counsel for plaintiffs and for the class in the case. On December 5, 2022, the Court stipulated a Scheduling Order in the case. On January 12, 2023, the Company's legal counsel timely filed its Notice of Appearance. On January 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint adding Kathryn Lever, Marat Rosenberg, Vadim Komissarov, Thomas Gallagher, Gennadii Butkevych, Ilya Ponomarev as additional defendants in the case. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b),14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert fees. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 3, 2023, under the newly consolidated caption and its proposed order to dismiss the matter. Plaintiffs were expected to file their opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than May 18, 2023, which would trigger the Company's deadline to file its reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss no later than June 20, 2023. On February 6, 2024, the SDNY granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss. On June 12, 2024, plaintiffs amended their complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"). On July 12, 2024, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (the "MTD Third Amended Complaint"). On August 8, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to the MTD Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed its reply on August 22, 2024 to plaintiffs' response in opposition to the MTD Third Amended Complaint. On February 25, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the MTD Third Amended Complaint (the "Order"). As set forth in the Order, the Class Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim shall proceed against Defendant Dickinson and the Company based on post−merger representations regarding Lottery's financial performance and financial reporting. Class Plaintiffs' and Hoffman's Section 20(a) claim premised on Section 10(b) shall likewise proceed against Defendant Dickinson. Class Plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claim shall proceed against the Company and Defendants DiMatteo, Clemenson and Dickinson with respect to certain legal and regulatory compliance statements in the Proxy. The remainder of Plaintiffs claims were dismissed, including all claims against Komissarov. The Court also ordered that Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend within twenty−one (21) days of this opinion and order. On March 13, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff Hoffman's motion for leave for additional time to amend his complaint. Accordingly, Hoffman's' Third Amended Complaint shall be due April 24, 2025. Defendants' motions to dismiss shall be due June 30, 2025; Plaintiff Hoffman's opposition brief will be due August 14, 2025; and Defendants' reply briefs shall be due September 17, 2025. Lottery.com is a provider of domestic and international lottery products and services that enable consumers and businesses to purchase purportedly legally sanctioned lottery tickets in the United States and abroad online through its proprietary business-to-consumer platform.[BN] MALIBU BOATS: Continues to Defend Customer Class Suit in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------------- Malibu Boats 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 customer class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On May 31, 2024, a customer filed a class action complaint against MBI and Boats LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. (Case 1:24-cv-00648). The complaint, which purports to be filed on behalf of a nationwide class of customers, alleges violation of common law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act based on guidance issued to customers of certain older model boats related to riding in the bow area of those boats. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss. Malibu Boats, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of a diverse range of recreational powerboats, including performance sport boats, sterndrive and outboard boats under eight brands: Malibu, Axis, Pursuit, Maverick, Cobia, Pathfinder, Hewes and Cobalt. MALIBU BOATS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- Malibu Boats Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 29, 2024, a stockholder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against MBI and Jack Springer, Bruce Beckman, David Black, and Wayne Wilson as current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:24-cv-03254). On August 15, 2024, the Court appointed the Retiree Benefit Trust of the City of Baltimore as the Lead Plaintiff in the action. The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by MBI related to the Company's business, operations, and prospects during the period from November 4, 2022 through May 1, 2024. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by not disclosing alleged material adverse facts related to the Company's inventory, demand and relationship with one of its former dealers, Tommy's Boats, and accordingly, that certain statements made during the class period about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against claims alleged in this securities class action. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss. Malibu Boats, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of a diverse range of recreational powerboats, including performance sport boats, sterndrive and outboard boats under eight brands: Malibu, Axis, Pursuit, Maverick, Cobia, Pathfinder, Hewes and Cobalt. MICROSOFT CORP: Brockman's Deposition Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The New York Times Company v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order as follows: -- Class Action Cases 1) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they had resolved the dispute regarding cross- production of documents for custodians Michael Lampe, Brad Lightcap, and Wojciech Zaremba, Case No. 23-CV-8292 are denied as moot. 2) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Microsoft's response to interrogatory number 8 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 4) The Class Plaintiffs' motions at Case Nos. 23-CV-8292 and 23-CV-3223 (N.D. Cal.) regarding OpenAI's privilege assertions and privilege clawbacks are denied as premature. 5) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they intend to meet and confer on the issues raised in Case No. 23-CV-8292, Class Plaintiffs' motion is denied as premature. 6) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied, pending filing of the proposed consolidated class action complaint. 7) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 8) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding OpenAI's assertion of privilege with respect to the deletion of Books1 and Books2 datasets is denied as premature in light of OpenAI's representations on the record. 9) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding the LibGen training data provided by Microsoft to OpenAI (RFP 41) is granted in part. 10) The parties are directed to meet and confer by June 13, 2025, on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 72 objections to Judge Illman's rulings in the N.D. Cal cases, and specifically consider whether those objections may be moot, resolved, or withdrawn in light of this Court’s guidance and discovery rulings. -- News Cases 1) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 2) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding proposed custodians David Rubin, Michael Greenspon, and Sam Dolnick as custodians for the New York Times is denied. 3) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 24-CV-4872 regarding additional CIR ESI custodians, is denied as premature. 4) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case no. 23-CV-11195 regarding RFP 61 and documents concerning licensing negotiations is denied as moot given the parties' representations at the May 27 conference that Microsoft would produce documents that encompass the compromise proposal suggested by News Plaintiffs. OpenAI operates as an investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NjDWBp at no extra charge.[CC] MICROSTRATEGY INC: Faces Securities Suit over Crypto Business ------------------------------------------------------------- Microstrategy Incorporated disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2025, that on May 16, 2025, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the company, Michael J. Saylor, Phong Le, and Andrew Kang, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff, Anas Hamza, purports to assert claims on behalf of a purported class of investors, for a period running from April 30, 2024 to April 4, 2025, alleging that the named defendants made false and/or misleading statements with respect to and/or failed to disclose information with respect to the anticipated profitability of its bitcoin-focused investment strategy and treasury operations, and the various risks associated with Bitcoin's volatility and the magnitude of the losses the company could recognize following its adoption of Accounting Standards Update No. 2023-08, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other—Crypto Assets (Subtopic 350-60): Accounting for and Disclosure of Crypto Assets. The complaint seeks unspecified damages to the class, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief. Microstrategy Inc. is a financial services company focusing on crypto assets, based in Virginia. MW POLAR FOODS: Beal Sues Over False Advertising ------------------------------------------------ Beverly Beal and Courtney Whetstone, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MW POLAR FOODS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-01358-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 28, 2025), is brought regarding the Defendant's canned Salmon Fillet in Brine and Juice (the "Product"), which contained false advertising in violation the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; violation of California's False Advertising Law; violation of New York Gen. Bus. Law; breach of express warranty; and unjust enrichment. The Defendant's Product is farm-raised in net-pens in Norway and Chile. As such, the only way that the fish in Defendant's Product get their signature salmon pink is from color additives Defendant intentionally added to the salmon's feed. Indeed, Independent testing conducted by Plaintiffs' counsel confirmed the presence of astaxanthin in the Product. Because the Product contains a color additive, Defendant was required to disclose it on the label but failed to do so. The Plaintiffs sustained injuries by purchasing Defendant's Product which was deceptively marketed as containing salmon fillets with a healthy, natural pink coloring when, instead, Defendant's farm-raised salmon necessarily contained artificial coloring. The Product is advertised, sold, and distributed by Defendant or its agents, to consumers, including Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes, throughout the United States, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs most recently purchased the Product. The Defendant markets, sells, and distributes the Product throughout the United States, including in California and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. Ryan B. Martin, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com rmartin@bursor.com NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Bid for Class Cert Due May 15, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CLOUGH, II, v. NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CO., LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00271-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial order. The parties submitted their Rule 26(f) Report on May 28, 2025, and indicated their preference that the Court issue a Preliminary Pretrial Order without a conference. Accordingly, the June 2, 2025, preliminary pretrial conference is vacated. The parties have agreed to make initial disclosures by June 30, 2025. Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed no later than November 17, 2025. A motion for class certification, if any, must be filed no later than May 15, 2026. Primary expert reports, if any, must be produced by April 1, 2026. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be produced by May 1, 2026 All discovery shall be completed by March 16, 2026. Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by May 15, 2026. Defendants shall respond by May 22, 2026. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant National Administrative Service Co., LLC, through its vendor, Pelican Investment Holdings Group LLC, placed telemarketing calls to his residential phone number despite his number being on the National Do Not Call Registry, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's ("TCPA") provisions. National develops and administers vehicle service contracts, mechanical breakdown insurance and related products sold through automobile dealers. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TiSjNj at no extra charge.[CC] NEXTRACKER INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nextracker Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 27, 2024, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed by a purported stockholder in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of the Company's officers, alleging that defendants made false and misleading statements about our business, financial results and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of the purported class. Nextracker Inc. and its subsidiaries is a provider of integrated solar trackers, foundations, and software solutions used in ground-mounted utility-scale and distributed generation solar projects around the world. NORTH EASTON SAVINGS: Concannon Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kiley Concannon and Brian Fenstermaker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NORTH EASTON SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 2473cv00895B was removed from the Superior Court at Bristol, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11515. This action concerns claims by the Plaintiffs that Defendant violated federal law, including the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stephen C. Reilly, Esq. Ryan M. Cunningham, Esq. FITCH LAW PARTNERS LLP 84 State Street, 11th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 542-5542 Fax: (617)542-1542 Email: scr@fitchlp.com rmc@fitchlp.com NU RIDE: Plan Settles Ohio Securities Suit ------------------------------------------ Nu Ride 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 Chapter 11 plan of reorganization has settled the putative securities class action lawsuits pending with the Northern District of Ohio. Six related putative securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors and former DiamondPeak directors between March 18, 2021 and May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Rico v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Palumbo v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Zuod v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Brury v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Romano v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; and FNY Managed Accounts LLC v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.). The matters have been consolidated and the Court appointed George Troicky as lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel (the "Ohio Securities Class Action"). On March 10, 2021, lead plaintiff and several additional named plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b), Section 14(a), Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint generally alleges that the Company and individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating to vehicle pre-orders and production timeline. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed as of March 3, 2023. The Company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on June 28, 2023, and filed an amended suggestion of bankruptcy on July 11, 2023, which notified the court of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and resulting automatic stay. On August 28, 2023, the court denied the pending motion to dismiss, without prejudice, given the notice of the automatic stay, subject to potential re-filing by the Defendants following the lifting of the stay. The Plan settled the Ohio Securities Class Action, with the lead plaintiff receiving (i) $3 million in cash and (ii) up to an additional $7 million, consisting of (a) 25% of all net litigation proceeds received by the Company on Retained Causes of Action (if any); and (b) the lesser of (x) 16% of any distribution made by the Company on account of Foxconn's preferred stock liquidation preference, and (y) $5 million, on behalf of the Ohio Settlement Class (as defined in the Plan). NU RIDE: RIDE Investor's Chapter 11 Claims Disallowed ----------------------------------------------------- Nu Ride 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 Bankruptcy Court disallowed the claims filed by Bandol Lim and RIDE Investor Group, plaintiffs in the postpetition securities class suit. On July 26, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio by Bandol Lim ("Plaintiff Lim"), individually and on behalf of other stockholders asserting violations of Section 10(b), Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder relating to the Company's disclosure regarding its relationship with Foxconn and the Foxconn Transactions (the "Post-Petition Securities Action"). The lawsuit names Edward Hightower, Adam Kroll, and Daniel Ninivaggi as Defendants ("Defendants") in their capacities as Company officers and/or directors. Defendants dispute the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the suit. None of the Debtors is named as a Defendant in the Post-Petition Securities Action. Plaintiff Lim and RIDE Investor Group each filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff in the Post-Petition Securities Action. On September 30, 2024, the Post-Petition Securities Action was dismissed in full on the grounds that none of the allegations were actionable. Separately, each of the members of the RIDE Investor Group filed proofs of claim (the "RIDE Proofs of Claims") against the Company, purportedly on behalf of themselves and the putative class in the Post-Petition Securities Action, in an unliquidated amount. The RIDE Investor Group has not sought authority from the Bankruptcy Court to file its purported class proofs of claim. The Plan constituted an objection to each of the RIDE Proofs of Claim, and on October 25, 2024, the Company filed additional objections to the RIDE Proofs of Claim on various grounds. Each of the RIDE Proofs of Claim was disallowed by Bankruptcy Court order, and the Company bears no liability for such claims. NU RIDE: Suit vs. DiamondPeak Directors Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Nu Ride 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 against DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. directors remain pending. Nu Ride Inc. was formerly known as Lordstown Motors Corp., also formerly known as DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against former DiamondPeak directors and DiamondPeak Sponsor LLC on December 8 and 13, 2021 in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Hebert v. Hamamoto, et al. (C.A. No. 2021-1066); and Amin v Hamamoto, et al. (C.A. No. 2021-1085)) (collectively, the "Delaware Class Action Litigation"). The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors in DiamondPeak and assert breach of fiduciary duty claims based on allegations that the defendants made or failed to prevent alleged misrepresentations regarding vehicle pre-orders and production timeline, and that but for those allegedly false and misleading disclosures, the plaintiffs would have exercised a right to redeem their shares prior to the de-SPAC transaction. On February 9, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating the two putative class action lawsuits, appointing Hebert and Amin as co-lead plaintiffs, appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Pomerantz LLP as co-lead counsel and setting a briefing schedule for the motions to dismiss and motions to stay. The motions to stay were fully briefed as of February 23, 2023 and the court held oral argument on February 28, 2023. On March 7, 2023, the court denied the motion to stay. On March 10, 2023, defendants filed their brief in support of their motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on April 27, 2023, and was scheduled for oral argument on May 10, 2023. On May 6, 2023, defendants withdrew the motion to dismiss without prejudice. On July 22, 2023, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint asserting similar claims. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint on October 14, 2023. Plaintiffs' answering brief and Defendants' reply brief were due on November 18 and December 9, 2023, respectively. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 6, 2023. On January 5, 2023, the defendants withdrew their motion to dismiss. On February 2, 2023, the court issued a case scheduling order setting forth pre-trial deadlines and a date for trial in March 2024. On February 3, 2023, defendants filed their answer to plaintiffs' amended class action complaint. On February 7, 2023, plaintiffs served the Company, as a non-party, with a subpoena for certain information, which the Company responded to on February 21, 2023. On June 9, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel regarding the appropriate scope of the Company's response to the subpoena. On July 5, 2023, in the Chapter 11 Cases, the Company filed (i) an adversary complaint seeking injunctive relief to extend the automatic stay to the plaintiffs in the Delaware Class Action Litigation, initiating the adversary proceeding captioned Lordstown Motors Corp. v. Amin, Adv. Proc. No. 23-50428 (Bankr. D. Del.) and (ii) a motion and brief in support thereof, seeking a preliminary injunction extending the automatic stay to the Delaware Class Action Litigation. On August 3, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Company's preliminary injunction motion. On July 21, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the Delaware Class Action Litigation. The parties have advised the Company that they have reached an agreement to resolve this matter, and the former DiamondPeak directors are seeking indemnification from the Company with respect to a portion of the settlement amount. The Company believes it has defenses to such indemnification claims, including that such indemnification claims are subject to subordination pursuant to applicable law, and, if allowed, should receive the treatment set forth in Article III B.8 of the Plan. The proceedings remain subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. On September 8, 2024, the Company and the former DiamondPeak directors entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which, among other things, such former directors' claims against the Company were settled. O'REILLY AUTO: McMillon Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Noah McMillon, on behalf of others similarly situated and the State of California under the Private Attorneys General Act v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU009825C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on May 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01357-BEN-VET. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Specifically, Plaintiff's PAGA claim is predicated on eleven supposed Labor Code violations: unpaid hours worked/minimum wage, unpaid overtime, unpaid paid sick leave, unpaid vacation wages, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, untimely payment of wages during employment, untimely payment of wages upon separation of employment, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed employee expenses, and failure to maintain accurate records.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James M. Peterson, Esq. Edwin M. Boniske, Esq. Steven M. Brunolli, Esq. HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 2600 San Diego, California 92101-7910 Phone: (619) 236-1551 Facsimile: (619) 696-1410 Email: peterson@higgslaw.com boniske@higgslaw.com brunollis@higgslaw.com OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Rains Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brittany Rains, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OCTAPHARMA PLASMA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. BCV-25-101509 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00638-JLT-CDB. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims on behalf of herself and a putative class of others similarly situated for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal and rest breaks; failure to maintain accurate employment records; failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure to pay final wages upon termination; failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay sick leave; unfair competition, all in violations of Cal. Lab. Codes and applicable Wage Orders.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tao Y. Leung, Esq. Michelle Roberts Gonzales, Esq. Ronnie Arenas, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 Email: tao.leung@hoganlovells.com michelle.roberts.gonzales@hoganlovells.com ronnie.arenas@hoganlovells.com OMOTAYO ALLI: Stralchuk Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALESIA STRALCHUK, et al., v. OMOTAYO B. ALLI, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00085-LAG (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a Class defined as follows: "All persons who are currently assigned to the Crisp County Detention Center or who in the future will be assigned to that Detention Center." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yfers8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. Alesia Stralchuk, Esq. 34816 1st Ave. . Apt. B-104 Federal Way, WA 98003-6719 Telephone: (320) 447-7718 OPENAI INC: Bid for Additional CIR ESI Custodians Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-04872 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order as follows: -- Class Action Cases 1) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they had resolved the dispute regarding cross- production of documents for custodians Michael Lampe, Brad Lightcap, and Wojciech Zaremba, Case No. 23-CV-8292 are denied as moot. 2) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Microsoft's response to interrogatory number 8 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 4) The Class Plaintiffs' motions at Case Nos. 23-CV-8292 and 23-CV-3223 (N.D. Cal.) regarding OpenAI's privilege assertions and privilege clawbacks are denied as premature. 5) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they intend to meet and confer on the issues raised in Case No. 23-CV-8292, Class Plaintiffs' motion is denied as premature. 6) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied, pending filing of the proposed consolidated class action complaint. 7) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 8) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding OpenAI's assertion of privilege with respect to the deletion of Books1 and Books2 datasets is denied as premature in light of OpenAI's representations on the record. 9) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding the LibGen training data provided by Microsoft to OpenAI (RFP 41) is granted in part. 10) The parties are directed to meet and confer by June 13, 2025, on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 72 objections to Judge Illman's rulings in the N.D. Cal cases, and specifically consider whether those objections may be moot, resolved, or withdrawn in light of this Court's guidance and discovery rulings. -- News Cases 1) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 2) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding proposed custodians David Rubin, Michael Greenspon, and Sam Dolnick as custodians for the New York Times is denied. 3) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 24-CV-4872 regarding additional CIR ESI custodians, is denied as premature. 4) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case no. 23-CV-11195 regarding RFP 61 and documents concerning licensing negotiations is denied as moot given the parties' representations at the May 27 conference that Microsoft would produce documents that encompass the compromise proposal suggested by News Plaintiffs. OpenAI operates as an investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vEhRSZ at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Brockman's Deposition Tossed w/o Prejudice in AG ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Authors Guild, et al., v. OpenAI Inc., et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-08292 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order as follows: -- Class Action Cases 1) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they had resolved the dispute regarding cross- production of documents for custodians Michael Lampe, Brad Lightcap, and Wojciech Zaremba, Case No. 23-CV-8292 are denied as moot. 2) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Microsoft's response to interrogatory number 8 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 4) The Class Plaintiffs' motions at Case Nos. 23-CV-8292 and 23-CV-3223 (N.D. Cal.) regarding OpenAI's privilege assertions and privilege clawbacks are denied as premature. 5) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they intend to meet and confer on the issues raised in Case No. 23-CV-8292, Class Plaintiffs' motion is denied as premature. 6) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied, pending filing of the proposed consolidated class action complaint. 7) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 8) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding OpenAI's assertion of privilege with respect to the deletion of Books1 and Books2 datasets is denied as premature in light of OpenAI's representations on the record. 9) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding the LibGen training data provided by Microsoft to OpenAI (RFP 41) is granted in part. 10) The parties are directed to meet and confer by June 13, 2025, on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 72 objections to Judge Illman's rulings in the N.D. Cal cases, and specifically consider whether those objections may be moot, resolved, or withdrawn in light of this Court’s guidance and discovery rulings. -- News Cases 1) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 2) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding proposed custodians David Rubin, Michael Greenspon, and Sam Dolnick as custodians for the New York Times is denied. 3) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 24-CV-4872 regarding additional CIR ESI custodians, is denied as premature. 4) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case no. 23-CV-11195 regarding RFP 61 and documents concerning licensing negotiations is denied as moot given the parties' representations at the May 27 conference that Microsoft would produce documents that encompass the compromise proposal suggested by News Plaintiffs. OpenAI is an American artificial intelligence (AI) organization founded in December 2015 and headquartered in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W2erY1 at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Parties in Daily News Suit Must Confer by June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daily News, LP, et al., v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-03285 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order as follows: -- Class Action Cases 1) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they had resolved the dispute regarding cross- production of documents for custodians Michael Lampe, Brad Lightcap, and Wojciech Zaremba, Case No. 23-CV-8292 are denied as moot. 2) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Microsoft's response to interrogatory number 8 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 4) The Class Plaintiffs' motions at Case Nos. 23-CV-8292 and 23-CV-3223 (N.D. Cal.) regarding OpenAI's privilege assertions and privilege clawbacks are denied as premature. 5) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they intend to meet and confer on the issues raised in Case No. 23-CV-8292, Class Plaintiffs' motion is denied as premature. 6) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied, pending filing of the proposed consolidated class action complaint. 7) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 8) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding OpenAI's assertion of privilege with respect to the deletion of Books1 and Books2 datasets is denied as premature in light of OpenAI's representations on the record. 9) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding the LibGen training data provided by Microsoft to OpenAI (RFP 41) is granted in part. 10) The parties are directed to meet and confer by June 13, 2025, on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 72 objections to Judge Illman's rulings in the N.D. Cal cases, and specifically consider whether those objections may be moot, resolved, or withdrawn in light of this Court’s guidance and discovery rulings. -- News Cases 1) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 2) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding proposed custodians David Rubin, Michael Greenspon, and Sam Dolnick as custodians for the New York Times is denied. 3) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 24-CV-4872 regarding additional CIR ESI custodians, is denied as premature. 4) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case no. 23-CV-11195 regarding RFP 61 and documents concerning licensing negotiations is denied as moot given the parties' representations at the May 27 conference that Microsoft would produce documents that encompass the compromise proposal suggested by News Plaintiffs. Microsoft is an American multinational corporation and technology conglomerate headquartered in Redmond, Washington. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v8Z3eV at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Parties in Davis Suit Must Confer by June 13 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ziff Davis, Inc., et al v. OpenAI, Inc., et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-04315 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order as follows: -- All Actions 1) The parties are directed to submit a proposed omnibus protective order by the close of business on June 6, 2025. 2) The parties are directed to include a new joint proposed discovery schedule, or, if the parties cannot agree, separate proposed discovery schedules, in the parties' proposed case schedule as directed by Judge Stein by June 17, 2025. 3) The parties are directed to meet and confer and file a joint proposed deposition protocol by June 6, 2025. -- Class Action Cases 1) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they had resolved the dispute regarding cross- production of documents for custodians Michael Lampe, Brad Lightcap, and Wojciech Zaremba, Case No. 23-CV-8292 are denied as moot. 2) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Microsoft's response to interrogatory number 8 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 4) The Class Plaintiffs' motions at Case Nos. 23-CV-8292 and 23-CV-3223 (N.D. Cal.) regarding OpenAI's privilege assertions and privilege clawbacks are denied as premature. 5) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they intend to meet and confer on the issues raised in Case No. 23-CV-8292, Class Plaintiffs' motion is denied as premature. 6) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied, pending filing of the proposed consolidated class action complaint. 7) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 8) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding OpenAI's assertion of privilege with respect to the deletion of Books1 and Books2 datasets is denied as premature in light of OpenAI's representations on the record. 9) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding the LibGen training data provided by Microsoft to OpenAI (RFP 41) is granted in part. 10) The parties are directed to meet and confer by June 13, 2025, on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 72 objections to Judge Illman's rulings in the N.D. Cal cases, and specifically consider whether those objections may be moot, resolved, or withdrawn in light of this Court’s guidance and discovery rulings. -- News Cases 1) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 2) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding proposed custodians David Rubin, Michael Greenspon, and Sam Dolnick as custodians for the New York Times is denied. 3) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 24-CV-4872 regarding additional CIR ESI custodians, is denied as premature. 4) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case no. 23-CV-11195 regarding RFP 61 and documents concerning licensing negotiations is denied as moot given the parties' representations at the May 27 conference that Microsoft would produce documents that encompass the compromise proposal suggested by News Plaintiffs. OpenAI operates as an investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sjK4CL at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Parties in Intercept Suit Must Confer by June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01515 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order as follows: -- All Actions 1) The parties are directed to submit a proposed omnibus protective order by the close of business on June 6, 2025. 2) The parties are directed to include a new joint proposed discovery schedule, or, if the parties cannot agree, separate proposed discovery schedules, in the parties' proposed case schedule as directed by Judge Stein by June 17, 2025. 3) The parties are directed to meet and confer and file a joint proposed deposition protocol by June 6, 2025. -- Class Action Cases 1) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they had resolved the dispute regarding cross- production of documents for custodians Michael Lampe, Brad Lightcap, and Wojciech Zaremba, Case No. 23-CV-8292 are denied as moot. 2) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Microsoft's response to interrogatory number 8 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 4) The Class Plaintiffs' motions at Case Nos. 23-CV-8292 and 23-CV-3223 (N.D. Cal.) regarding OpenAI's privilege assertions and privilege clawbacks are denied as premature. 5) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they intend to meet and confer on the issues raised in Case No. 23-CV-8292, Class Plaintiffs' motion is denied as premature. 6) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied, pending filing of the proposed consolidated class action complaint. 7) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 8) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding OpenAI's assertion of privilege with respect to the deletion of Books1 and Books2 datasets is denied as premature in light of OpenAI's representations on the record. 9) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding the LibGen training data provided by Microsoft to OpenAI (RFP 41) is granted in part. 10) The parties are directed to meet and confer by June 13, 2025, on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 72 objections to Judge Illman's rulings in the N.D. Cal cases, and specifically consider whether those objections may be moot, resolved, or withdrawn in light of this Court’s guidance and discovery rulings. -- News Cases 1) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 2) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding proposed custodians David Rubin, Michael Greenspon, and Sam Dolnick as custodians for the New York Times is denied. 3) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 24-CV-4872 regarding additional CIR ESI custodians, is denied as premature. 4) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case no. 23-CV-11195 regarding RFP 61 and documents concerning licensing negotiations is denied as moot given the parties' representations at the May 27 conference that Microsoft would produce documents that encompass the compromise proposal suggested by News Plaintiffs. OpenAI, Inc. is an American artificial intelligence (AI) organization founded in December 2015 and headquartered in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AcxCjy at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Parties in Millette Suit Must Confer by June 13 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Millette v. OpenAI, Inc. et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-03297 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order as follows: -- All Actions 1) The parties are directed to submit a proposed omnibus protective order by the close of business on June 6, 2025. 2) The parties are directed to include a new joint proposed discovery schedule, or, if the parties cannot agree, separate proposed discovery schedules, in the parties' proposed case schedule as directed by Judge Stein by June 17, 2025. 3) The parties are directed to meet and confer and file a joint proposed deposition protocol by June 6, 2025. -- Class Action Cases 1) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they had resolved the dispute regarding cross- production of documents for custodians Michael Lampe, Brad Lightcap, and Wojciech Zaremba, Case No. 23-CV-8292 are denied as moot. 2) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Microsoft's response to interrogatory number 8 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 4) The Class Plaintiffs' motions at Case Nos. 23-CV-8292 and 23-CV-3223 (N.D. Cal.) regarding OpenAI's privilege assertions and privilege clawbacks are denied as premature. 5) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they intend to meet and confer on the issues raised in Case No. 23-CV-8292, Class Plaintiffs' motion is denied as premature. 6) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied, pending filing of the proposed consolidated class action complaint. 7) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 8) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding OpenAI's assertion of privilege with respect to the deletion of Books1 and Books2 datasets is denied as premature in light of OpenAI's representations on the record. 9) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding the LibGen training data provided by Microsoft to OpenAI (RFP 41) is granted in part. 10) The parties are directed to meet and confer by June 13, 2025, on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 72 objections to Judge Illman's rulings in the N.D. Cal cases, and specifically consider whether those objections may be moot, resolved, or withdrawn in light of this Court’s guidance and discovery rulings. -- News Cases 1) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 2) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding proposed custodians David Rubin, Michael Greenspon, and Sam Dolnick as custodians for the New York Times is denied. 3) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 24-CV-4872 regarding additional CIR ESI custodians, is denied as premature. 4) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case no. 23-CV-11195 regarding RFP 61 and documents concerning licensing negotiations is denied as moot given the parties' representations at the May 27 conference that Microsoft would produce documents that encompass the compromise proposal suggested by News Plaintiffs. OpenAI, Inc. is an American artificial intelligence (AI) organization founded in December 2015 and headquartered in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kHeXvO at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Parties in Raw Story Suit Must Confer by June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raw Story Media, Inc. et al v. OpenAI Inc., et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01514 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order as follows: -- All Actions 1) The parties are directed to submit a proposed omnibus protective order by the close of business on June 6, 2025. 2) The parties are directed to include a new joint proposed discovery schedule, or, if the parties cannot agree, separate proposed discovery schedules, in the parties' proposed case schedule as directed by Judge Stein by June 17, 2025. 3) The parties are directed to meet and confer and file a joint proposed deposition protocol by June 6, 2025. -- Class Action Cases 1) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they had resolved the dispute regarding cross- production of documents for custodians Michael Lampe, Brad Lightcap, and Wojciech Zaremba, Case No. 23-CV-8292 are denied as moot. 2) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Microsoft's response to interrogatory number 8 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 4) The Class Plaintiffs' motions at Case Nos. 23-CV-8292 and 23-CV-3223 (N.D. Cal.) regarding OpenAI's privilege assertions and privilege clawbacks are denied as premature. 5) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they intend to meet and confer on the issues raised in Case No. 23-CV-8292, Class Plaintiffs' motion is denied as premature. 6) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied, pending filing of the proposed consolidated class action complaint. 7) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 8) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding OpenAI's assertion of privilege with respect to the deletion of Books1 and Books2 datasets is denied as premature in light of OpenAI's representations on the record. 9) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding the LibGen training data provided by Microsoft to OpenAI (RFP 41) is granted in part. 10) The parties are directed to meet and confer by June 13, 2025, on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 72 objections to Judge Illman's rulings in the N.D. Cal cases, and specifically consider whether those objections may be moot, resolved, or withdrawn in light of this Court’s guidance and discovery rulings. -- News Cases 1) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 2) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding proposed custodians David Rubin, Michael Greenspon, and Sam Dolnick as custodians for the New York Times is denied. 3) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 24-CV-4872 regarding additional CIR ESI custodians, is denied as premature. 4) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case no. 23-CV-11195 regarding RFP 61 and documents concerning licensing negotiations is denied as moot given the parties' representations at the May 27 conference that Microsoft would produce documents that encompass the compromise proposal suggested by News Plaintiffs. OpenAI operates as an investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HUWGmZ at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Parties in Silverman Suit Must Confer by June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Silverman, et al., v. OpenAI, Inc. et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-03483 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order as follows: -- All Actions 1) The parties are directed to submit a proposed omnibus protective order by the close of business on June 6, 2025. 2) The parties are directed to include a new joint proposed discovery schedule, or, if the parties cannot agree, separate proposed discovery schedules, in the parties' proposed case schedule as directed by Judge Stein by June 17, 2025. 3) The parties are directed to meet and confer and file a joint proposed deposition protocol by June 6, 2025. -- Class Action Cases 1) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they had resolved the dispute regarding cross- production of documents for custodians Michael Lampe, Brad Lightcap, and Wojciech Zaremba, Case No. 23-CV-8292 are denied as moot. 2) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Microsoft's response to interrogatory number 8 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 4) The Class Plaintiffs' motions at Case Nos. 23-CV-8292 and 23-CV-3223 (N.D. Cal.) regarding OpenAI's privilege assertions and privilege clawbacks are denied as premature. 5) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they intend to meet and confer on the issues raised in Case No. 23-CV-8292, Class Plaintiffs' motion is denied as premature. 6) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied, pending filing of the proposed consolidated class action complaint. 7) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 8) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding OpenAI's assertion of privilege with respect to the deletion of Books1 and Books2 datasets is denied as premature in light of OpenAI's representations on the record. 9) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding the LibGen training data provided by Microsoft to OpenAI (RFP 41) is granted in part. 10) The parties are directed to meet and confer by June 13, 2025, on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 72 objections to Judge Illman's rulings in the N.D. Cal cases, and specifically consider whether those objections may be moot, resolved, or withdrawn in light of this Court’s guidance and discovery rulings. -- News Cases 1) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 2) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding proposed custodians David Rubin, Michael Greenspon, and Sam Dolnick as custodians for the New York Times is denied. 3) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 24-CV-4872 regarding additional CIR ESI custodians, is denied as premature. 4) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case no. 23-CV-11195 regarding RFP 61 and documents concerning licensing negotiations is denied as moot given the parties' representations at the May 27 conference that Microsoft would produce documents that encompass the compromise proposal suggested by News Plaintiffs. OpenAI operates as an investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wEF8MP at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Parties in Tremblay Suit Mus Confer by June 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tremblay, et al., v. OpenAI, Inc., et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-03482 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order as follows: -- All Actions 1) The parties are directed to submit a proposed omnibus protective order by the close of business on June 6, 2025. 2) The parties are directed to include a new joint proposed discovery schedule, or, if the parties cannot agree, separate proposed discovery schedules, in the parties' proposed case schedule as directed by Judge Stein by June 17, 2025. 3) The parties are directed to meet and confer and file a joint proposed deposition protocol by June 6, 2025. -- Class Action Cases 1) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they had resolved the dispute regarding cross- production of documents for custodians Michael Lampe, Brad Lightcap, and Wojciech Zaremba, Case No. 23-CV-8292 are denied as moot. 2) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Microsoft's response to interrogatory number 8 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 4) The Class Plaintiffs' motions at Case Nos. 23-CV-8292 and 23-CV-3223 (N.D. Cal.) regarding OpenAI's privilege assertions and privilege clawbacks are denied as premature. 5) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they intend to meet and confer on the issues raised in Case No. 23-CV-8292, Class Plaintiffs' motion is denied as premature. 6) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied, pending filing of the proposed consolidated class action complaint. 7) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 8) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding OpenAI's assertion of privilege with respect to the deletion of Books1 and Books2 datasets is denied as premature in light of OpenAI's representations on the record. 9) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding the LibGen training data provided by Microsoft to OpenAI (RFP 41) is granted in part. 10) The parties are directed to meet and confer by June 13, 2025, on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 72 objections to Judge Illman's rulings in the N.D. Cal cases, and specifically consider whether those objections may be moot, resolved, or withdrawn in light of this Court’s guidance and discovery rulings. -- News Cases 1) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 2) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding proposed custodians David Rubin, Michael Greenspon, and Sam Dolnick as custodians for the New York Times is denied. 3) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 24-CV-4872 regarding additional CIR ESI custodians, is denied as premature. 4) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case no. 23-CV-11195 regarding RFP 61 and documents concerning licensing negotiations is denied as moot given the parties' representations at the May 27 conference that Microsoft would produce documents that encompass the compromise proposal suggested by News Plaintiffs. OpenAI, Inc. is an American artificial intelligence (AI) organization founded in December 2015 and headquartered in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4sPtID at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Parties Must in Chabon Must Confer by June 13 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chabon, et al., v. OpenAI, Inc., et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-03291 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order as follows: -- Class Action Cases 1) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they had resolved the dispute regarding cross- production of documents for custodians Michael Lampe, Brad Lightcap, and Wojciech Zaremba, Case No. 23-CV-8292 are denied as moot. 2) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Microsoft's response to interrogatory number 8 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied without prejudice to renewal. 4) The Class Plaintiffs' motions at Case Nos. 23-CV-8292 and 23-CV-3223 (N.D. Cal.) regarding OpenAI's privilege assertions and privilege clawbacks are denied as premature. 5) Because the parties represented at the May 27 conference that they intend to meet and confer on the issues raised in Case No. 23-CV-8292, Class Plaintiffs' motion is denied as premature. 6) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 is denied, pending filing of the proposed consolidated class action complaint. 7) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 8) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding OpenAI's assertion of privilege with respect to the deletion of Books1 and Books2 datasets is denied as premature in light of OpenAI's representations on the record. 9) Class Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-8292 regarding the LibGen training data provided by Microsoft to OpenAI (RFP 41) is granted in part. 10) The parties are directed to meet and confer by June 13, 2025, on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 72 objections to Judge Illman's rulings in the N.D. Cal cases, and specifically consider whether those objections may be moot, resolved, or withdrawn in light of this Court’s guidance and discovery rulings. -- News Cases 1) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding Mr. Brockman's deposition is denied without prejudice to renewal. 2) OpenAI's motion at Case No. 23-CV-11195 regarding proposed custodians David Rubin, Michael Greenspon, and Sam Dolnick as custodians for the New York Times is denied. 3) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case No. 24-CV-4872 regarding additional CIR ESI custodians, is denied as premature. 4) News Plaintiffs' motion at Case no. 23-CV-11195 regarding RFP 61 and documents concerning licensing negotiations is denied as moot given the parties' representations at the May 27 conference that Microsoft would produce documents that encompass the compromise proposal suggested by News Plaintiffs. OpenAI operates as an investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=991JOC at no extra charge.[CC] ORLANDO HEALTH: Class Cert Filing in W.W. Suit Extended to Oct. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.W. v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01068 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for extension of deadlines related to class certification. -- The deadline for Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosure is extended to Sept. 15, 2025. -- The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended to Oct. 1, 2025. -- The deadlines for Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification and for Defendant's class certification rebuttal expert disclosure are extended to Nov. 3, 2025. -- The deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support of the motion for class certification is extended to Dec. 1, 2025. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Orlando Health is a private, not-for-profit network of community and specialty hospitals based in Orlando, Florida.[CC] ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend California Labor Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a California labor class suit. On July 29, 2024, a former employee filed a class action against the Company in Imperial County, California alleging violations of the California Labor Code, to act in a representative capacity for other Ormat employees in California alleging violations of California wage and hour regulations. The complaint was amended on September 12, 2024 to add companion Private Attorneys General Act claims. The complaint seeks recovery of various damages as well as equitable relief. The parties attended a mediation in April 2025 and have reached a settlement in principle for an immaterial amount, which is subject to approval by the Court. Ormat Technologies, Inc.is a vertically integrated company that is primarily engaged in the geothermal energy power business based in Nevada. OUTSET MEDICAL: Response to Amended Complaint Due August 14 ----------------------------------------------------------- Outset Medical, 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 filing of the amended complaint is due on June 6, 2025 and defendants response is due by August 14, 2025, with additional briefing to follow. On August 29, 2024, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit (the Porcelli Complaint), Porcelli, et al. v. Outset Medical, Inc., et al., 5:24-cv-06124-EJD, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer as defendants. On October 18, 2024, a second purported stockholder class action lawsuit (the Plymouth Complaint), Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Outset Medical, Inc, et al., 5:24-cv-06124-HSG, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The second lawsuit additionally names the Company's former Chief Financial Officer as a defendant. The Porcelli Complaint alleges that between August 1, 2022 and August 7, 2024, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act) by making false or misleading statements about the Company’s business, operations and prospects related to the sale and marketing of the Tablo Hemodialysis System and TabloCart with Prefiltration, including concerning the impact of certain FDA processes for these products on the Company’s revenue growth. The Plymouth Complaint alleges the same violations between September 15, 2020 and August 7, 2024. On March 18, 2025, the court issued an order relating and consolidating the Porcelli Complaint and the Plymouth Complaint, appointing the lead plaintiff, and approving lead plaintiff’s choice of counsel. On April 17, 2025, the court entered an order on the parties’ stipulated case schedule. Lead plaintiff must file an amended complaint by June 6, 2025 and defendants must respond by August 14, 2025, with additional briefing to follow. Outset is a medical technology company into hemodialysis technology. Its proprietary Tablo(R) Hemodialysis System allows dialysis to be delivered anytime, anywhere and by virtually anyone requiring only an electrical outlet and tap water to operate and serves as a dialysis clinic on wheels. PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Continues to Defend Alvarez Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Pacira BioSciences 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 Alvarez securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On January 13, 2025, Leandro Alvarez filed a putative class action on behalf of Company shareholders between August 2, 2023 and August 8, 2024 against the Company and certain of its officers, in the District Court of New Jersey (25-cv-322). The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts concerning EXPAREL patents. The case is in the pleadings stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation at this time. Pacira is an American pharmaceutical company that develops and provides non-opioid pan management and regenerative health solutions.[BN] PARSEC INC: Class Cert Hearing in Mealancon Continued to Dec. 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID MEALANCON and DOMINICK BOOZER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PARSEC, INC., an entity of unknown form; BUDCO GROUP, INC., an Ohio corporation; BUDCO GROUP, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00716-AH-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered an order granting in part joint stipulation to extend deadlines: The last day to hear a motion for class certification is continued to December 3, 2025. Parsec is a provider of contracted terminal management services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RYg786 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. Roman Shkodnik, Esq. Mason Doidge, Esq. D.LAW, INC 450 N Brand Blvd., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: emil@d.law d.yeremian@d.law r.shkodnik@d.law m.doidge@d.law PLAYAGS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------- PlayAGS Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On June 25 and July 31, 2020, putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Court"), by two separate plaintiffs against the Company and certain of its officers, individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, resulting in injury to the purported class members when the value of the Company's common stock declined following its release of its Second Quarter 2019 results on August 7, 2019. On August 4, 2020, a third plaintiff ("OPPRS") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the same court asserting similar claims to those alleged in the first two class action complaints, based on substantially the same conduct, on behalf of a slightly larger class (stretching back to May 3, 2018). Specifically, OPPRS claimed that the Company, certain of its officers, and certain entities that allegedly beneficially held over 50% of the Company's common stock at the beginning of the class period, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, and the adequacy of its internal controls over financial reporting, resulting in injury to the purported class when the Company's common stock price declined following the release of its Second Quarter 2019 results. In addition, based on substantially similar alleged false or misleading statements, OPPRS asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), on behalf of all persons who purchased Company common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's August 2018 and March 2019 secondary public offerings. These secondary-offering claims were brought against the same defendants identified above, plus certain of the Company's directors and the underwriters. On October 28, 2020, the Court consolidated these three related putative class actions into In re PlayAGS, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed OPPRS as lead plaintiff. On January 11, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in the consolidated action against the same set of defendants, again asserting claims (i) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, with an even larger putative class period (May 3, 2018 through March 4, 2020), and (ii) under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of the same putative class as in OPPRS's previous complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that statements the defendants made about, among other things, the Company's growth, financial performance, and forward-looking financial outlook were materially false or misleading because the Company omitted to state that, according to plaintiffs, its market strength was declining, its growth strategies were unsustainable, and it was experiencing challenges in the Oklahoma market. Plaintiffs claimed that the purported class was injured when the common stock price declined after the alleged "truth" was revealed following release of the Company's financial reports on August 7, 2019, November 7, 2019, and March 4, 2020. Plaintiffs also asserted that the Company violated Regulation S-K Items 303 and 105 by failing to disclose these same alleged negative trends and significant risks in the registration materials for the Company's secondary offerings. Unlike the previous complaints, the Amended Complaint did not allege false or misleading statements concerning the Company's accounting for the iGaming reporting unit or the adequacy of the Company's internal controls over financial reporting. On February 23, 2021, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's unopposed motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 25, 2021 and asserted substantially the same claims as the Amended Complaint but extended the beginning of the putative class period back to January 26, 2018. On May 24, 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and on December 2, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part those motions. It dismissed each of the five claims in the second amended complaint—including all claims under the Securities Act—but the Court carved out from the dismissal a "scheme liability" claim under Section 10(b), brought only against the Company, David Lopez, and Kimo Akiona, which the Court felt was insufficiently briefed. The lead plaintiff was granted leave to file a further amended complaint but chose not to, and instead sought to move forward on the sole remaining scheme liability claim. On January 17, 2023, the Company, Mr. Lopez, and Mr. Akiona filed an answer to the remaining claim, along with a motion to temporarily stay discovery and a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the legal findings contained in the Court's December 2, 2022 decision require dismissal of the scheme liability claim as well and termination of the action. Those motions were fully briefed as of March 22, 2023. On March 23, 2023, the Court decided the motion to temporarily stay discovery in favor of the defendants, holding that all discovery was stayed pending resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. On February 13, 2024, the Court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the securities class action in full with prejudice. On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff's filed a notice of appeal, and the parties briefed that appeal in the spring and summer of 2024. On March 4, 2025, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal, and on March 27, 2025 the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum order affirming the lower Court's dismissal of all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff-Appellant has indicated that it intends to petition for rehearing en banc. The Company, Mr. Lopez, and Mr. Akiona will continue to defend vigorously against these claims, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome. PlayAGS, Inc. is a designer and supplier of gaming products and services for the gaming industry. POSIGEN DEVELOPER: Class Cert Bid in Weingrad Due Jan. 26, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON WEINGRAD v. POSIGEN DEVELOPER, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-06503-GAW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gail Weilheimer entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All factual discovery shall be completed Nov. 17, 2025 on or before: -- Plaintiff's expert report, if any Dec. 15, 2025 is due: -- Defendant's expert report, if any Jan. 12, 2026 is due: -- Class Certification, if any is due: Jan. 26, 2026 -- Responses to class certification, Feb. 26, 2026 If any is due: PosiGen is a residential solar and energy efficiency provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VE2kHT at no extra charge.[CC] PPG INDUSTRIES: Kassem Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ahmad Sari Kassem, individually and on behalf of himself and al others similarly situated v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, PPG ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES, INC., a Delaware corporation, THE PITTSBURGH PAINTS CO., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01477899 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01179-JWH-AS. The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action: Minimum Wage; Unpaid Overtime; Meal Break Violations; Rest Period Violations; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Wage Statement Violation; Violation of California Business & Professions Code; and Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses, all in Violation of California Labor Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: sdavoudian@littler.com - and - Lauren Manso, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: lmanso@littler.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Alzaidi Sues Over False Claims of Restoring ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Alzaidi, Dwight Chornomud, and Melissa Cuevas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-04519 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2025), is brought alleging claims against one of the biggest consumer good companies in the world who, for years, has been complicit in the clearcutting of untouched ancient primary forests in order to sell billions of dollars of single-use tissue products--all the while reassuring consumers with false claims that it is committed to protecting, regrowing, and restoring these unique forests. Unfortunately, P&G's promise to Keep Forests as Forests and its commitment to Protect-Grow-Restore trees amounts to nothing more than greenwashing. Greenwashing is the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or a product. Greenwashing occurs when a company positions itself (or a specific product) as having a positive influence on environmental issues when, in reality, the company (or product) is either exaggerating its influence and/or actively engaging in negative environmental practices that do not align with its previously touted green goals. All of these misleading claims and P&G's broken promises are clear violations of the Green Guides. Developed by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), the Green Guides are designed to help marketers avoid making environmental marketing claims that are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The Green Guides also play a large role in state consumer protection law. At least twelve states14 have laws that directly incorporate the standards set forth in the Green Guides as the legal standard for lawfully making certain marketing claims and twenty-seven states and territories16 have laws designating the FTC's interpretation in the Green Guides as persuasive authority for courts. As P&G's Keep Forests as Forests Campaign and packaging practices violate multiple sections of the FTC Green Guides. Yet, despite P&G's clearly misleading claims and Green Guide violations, P&G refuses to act to either conform its environmental practices to be consistent with what it is telling consumers--or admit to its reliance on environmentally devastating activities. And while there has been some activity at the shareholder level--even the descendants of the Procter and Gamble families have strongly criticized P&G's practices—P&G continues to mislead consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff routinely purchased Charmin Toilet Paper from Amazon and Safeway stores in California. Procter & Gamble Company sources the wood pulp used in its Charmin Toilet Paper and Puffs Tissue brands2 from the Canadian boreal fores.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben M. Harrington, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Email: benh@hbsslaw.com - and - Catherine Y.N. Gannon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Email: catherineg@hbsslaw.com REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The RealReal 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 shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Beginning on September 10, 2019, purported shareholder class action complaints were filed against the Company, its officers and directors and the underwriters of its IPO in the San Mateo Superior Court, Marin County Superior Court, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 27, 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the shareholder class action. On November 5, 2021, plaintiff filed the executed stipulation of settlement and motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the federal court. On March 24, 2022, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On July 28, 2022, the court entered an order finally approving the settlement and dismissing the case. The financial terms of the stipulation of settlement provide that the Company will pay $11.0 million within thirty (30) days of the later of preliminary approval of the settlement or plaintiff's counsel providing payment instructions. The Company paid the settlement amount on March 29, 2022 with available resources and recorded approximately $11.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 under our Operating expenses as a Legal settlement. One of the plaintiffs in the Marin County case opted out of the federal settlement and is pursuing the claim in Marin County Superior Court. The stay of the state court case has been lifted, and the opt out plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2022 alleging putative class claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of the two shareholders who opted out of the settlement and those who purchased stock from November 21, 2019 through March 9, 2020, based on purported new revelations. The claims are for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. On February 23, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which has been set for hearing on July 15, 2025. While the Company intends to defend vigorously against this litigation, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense. For this reason, the Company cannot currently estimate the loss or range of possible losses it may experience in connection with this litigation. RealReal is an online and brick-and-mortar marketplace for authenticated luxury consignment. Based on the circular economy, The RealReal sells consigned clothing, fine jewelry, watches, fine art and home decor.[BN] SEYBOTH TEAM: Class Cert Bid Deadline in Iudiciani Suit Vacated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Iudiciani v. The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00443 (D.R.I., Filed Oct. 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Mary S. Mcelroy entered an order as follows: -- The current deadline for Plaintiff to file its Motion for Class Certification is vacated. -- Mr. Kruzyk and Mr. Lepizzera will promptly meet and confer, including with Mr. Lepizzera's electronic discovery vendor, to determine how to efficiently extract, review, and provide the data at issue. -- The parties are directed to file for the Court's consideration no later than June 5, 2025, a joint proposed scheduling order governing updated responses to all outstanding discovery, timing for Plaintiff to take the 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant, and timing for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Defendant offers residential and commercial real estate services in Rhode Island and Southern Massachusetts.[CC] SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Stockholder Class Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Solaredge Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed discovery on the consolidated stockholder Class suit pending the Court's ultimate decision on the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On November 3, 2023, Daphne Shen, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a proposed class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws, individually and putatively on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company's former CEO and the Company's former CFO. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other relief. On December 13, 2023, Javier Cascallar filed a similar proposed class action. On January 2, 2024, six purported lead plaintiffs filed motions in the Shen litigation seeking to consolidate the Cascallar and Shen litigations and appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On February 7, 2024, the Court consolidated the two actions (the "Consolidated Securities Litigation"), and appointed co-lead plaintiffs (the "Plaintiffs") and lead counsel. On April 22, 2024, the co-lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two additional officers. The amended complaint made substantially similar allegations and claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 15, 2024 (the "Motion"), and the motion was fully briefed as of September 17, 2024. On December 4, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part the Motion, dismissing all allegations except those relating to two purported misstatements, characterizing inventory levels as low. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to again amend their complaint, and they filed a second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") on January 3, 2025. On February 10, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint insofar as it attempts to resurrect any of the allegations dismissed in the Court's December 4 order. On April 7, 2025, a judge issued an order granting in part the Motion, and dismissing all allegations except those characterizing inventory levels as "low" and those relating to demand in Europe. The judge again granted the Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a further amended complaint, which is due on May 7, 2025. Discovery remains stayed pending the Court's ultimate decision on the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. provides solar power optimization and photovoltaic monitoring solutions. The Company offers optimizers, inverters, monitoring equipment, tools, and accessories for power harvesting, conversion, and efficiency. [BN] SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY MCKEVER and DANA J. BELVIY on behalf of Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program, v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06170-SAL (D.S.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending its deadline to file a response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification up to and including June 25, 2025. The Defendant's current deadline to file a response is June 11, 2025. The discovery deadline does not expire until August 29, 2025. No other deadlines on the Court’s Scheduling Order will be impacted if this Motion is granted. Southeastern provides transportation services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dNDxzx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Andreas N. Satterfield, Jr., Esq. Rene E. Thorne, Esq. Alex E. Hotard, Esq. Phillip C. Thompson, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 15 South Main Street, Suite 700 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 232-7000 E-mail: Andy.Satterfield@jacksonlewis.com Rene.Thorne@jacksonlewis.com Alex.Hotard@jacksonlewis.com Phillip.Thompson@jacksonlewis.com TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 16, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mott v. TDS Telecommunications, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00185 (D. Colo., Filed Jan. 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order granting joint motion to modify scheduling order. -- Deadline for Joinder of Parties and Aug. 1. 2025 Amendment of Pleadings is extended to: -- Deadline to serve written discovery is Jan. 16, 2026 extended to: -- Motion for class certification and Jan 16, 2026 Motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) decertification are due: -- Discovery cut-off is extended to: March 1, 2026 -- Dispositive Motion Notice deadline March 11, 2026 is extended to: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). TDS delivers high-speed internet, TV entertainment, and phone services to rural, suburban, and metropolitan communities across the U.S.[CC] TWITTER INC: Bid to Extend Class Certification Deadline Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Weinberg, et al., v. Twitter, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04016 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order denying the stipulation to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The stipulation, filed on the day of the deadline, is untimely under Section D.2 of the Court's Civil Standing Order, and it lacks a declaration supporting good cause for the extension as required by Civil Local Rule 6-2. The parties shall meet and confer and propose a case schedule for adjudication of Plaintiffs' individual claims. The parties' joint filing regarding the remaining case schedule shall be filed by no later than noon on June 13, 2025. The nature of suit states Job Discrimination (Employment). Twitter was an American social media company based in San Francisco, California, which operated and was named for its flagship social media network prior to its rebrand as X.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Espinoza Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joseph Anthony Espinoza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. United Parcel Service, Inc., UPS Capital Corporation, DOES 1-10, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on May 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00429 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. United Parcel Service -- https://www.ups.com/ -- is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company founded in 1907.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tomkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old County Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan E. Hall, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP 4140 Parklake Ave., Ste. 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 Phone: (919) 789-5300 Fax: (919) 789-5301 Email: jonathan.hall@phelps.com UNITED SEATING: Tapia Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jason Tapia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. United Seating and Mobility, LLC doing business as: Numotion, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU020509C was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01354-BEN-AHG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. United Seating and Mobility, LLC doing business as Numotion -- https://www.numotion.com/ -- is the nation's leading provider of Complex Rehab Technology (CRT) with an array of mobility solutions and medical supplies for adults and pediatrics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. James Michael Treglio, Esq. Mark D. Potter, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: isabelm@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com mark@potterhandy.com The Defendants are represented by: Sean P. Killeen, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 659-2623 Fax: (415) 659-2601 Email: skilleen@bakerlaw.com UNITED STATES: Chapter1 LLC Sues Over Illegally Imposed Tariffs --------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter1 LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. THE UNITED STATES, Case 1:25-cv-00097-N/A (Ct. Intl. Trade, May 29, 2025), is brought requiring this Court to consider whether the recently imposed tariffs, ostensibly authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were illegally imposed. But for Plaintiff Chapter1, LLC, this is not only a case of grand constitutional principal or governmental theory; it is a dispute that will make or break a business whose primary motivation is to manufacture high-quality skincare products here in the United States. To do so, Chapter1's founder formed a startup company and signed a contract to import specialized manufacturing equipment from China. But there was a delay at the port, so his machine left the Port of Shanghai for the United States on April 7, 2025. And so Chapter1 was faced with an unforeseen and unprecedented tariff of $26,985.62 on $13,000 of goods. Those tariffs were illegally imposed. As this Court ruled in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-66, and Oregon v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-77, IEEPA does not grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs on any country at any rate for any time interval he wants. Because the tariffs were illegally imposed, Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in the amount it illegally paid or an order requiring a refund. That amount is $22,953.50, as the indisputable facts show, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Chapter1 is a Nevada limited-liability company wholly owned by Ali Shaubzada. IEEPA authorizes the President to take certain specified measures "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Gerstein, Esq. Jeremy Shur, Esq. GERSTEIN HARROW LLP 400 7th Street NW, Suite 304 Washington, DC 20025 Phone: (202) 670-4809 Email: charlie@gerstein-harrow.com - and - Jason Harrow, Esq. GERSTEIN HARROW LLP 12100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (323) 744-5293 Email: jason@gerstein-harrow.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***