250616.mbx

250616.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 16, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 119 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Kennedy Sues Over Chemical Contaminated Water 3M COMPANY: Trevino Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Valverde Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Weinberg Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ABRUZZO DOCG: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Liz Suit Says AMB HTD BEACON: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motions in Limine in Quinton Suit Granted in Part AMERICAN HEALTH REFORM: Fox Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Miles Alleges APOTEX CORP: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Final Court Approval APPLE INC: Korean Publishers Sues Over Anticompetitive Practices ARMADA SKILLED: Class Notice in Apodoca, et al. Wage Suit Okayed ASTENJOHNSON HOLDINGS: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation AURORA CANNABIS: Ontario Court Certifies CHS Class Action Lawsuit BARON CAPITAL: DCVC's Bid to Enforce Subpoenas Denied as Moot BEST BUY: Removes Harper Class Suit to W.D. Mich. BRISTOL HOSPICE: Rey, et al. Lawsuit Remanded to State Court BRUCE FINK DDS: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia BULLDOG MARINE: Misclassifies Independent Contractors, Sellars Says BURLINGTON CAPITAL: Court Affirms Discovery Ruling in Gibson Suit CABOT OIL: Dismissal of Shareholder Derivative Suit Affirmed CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Faces Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping CAPTIONCALL LLC: Settlement in Brady Suit Obtains Final Court Nod CATHOLIC CHARITIES: Vaughn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Court Tosses Amended Securities Complaint CHRISTOPHER LAROSE: A.M. Files Suit in S.D. California CIVITAS RESOURCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 1 CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: L. B. Files Suit in N.D. Illinois COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM: Smith Files Suit in D. New Jersey COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Rosewood Suit Over Mislabeled Baby Wipes COSTCO WHOLESALE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Bullard, et al. PFAS Suit COX AUTOMOTIVE: Leadum Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CROWDVEST LLC: Johnson's Bid to Compel Discovery Granted in Part DESJARDINS FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit for $7MM DEVS FOODS: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend Shareholder Securities Suit DONALD J. TRUMP: Court Decertifies Class in A.S.R. Lawsuit EISNER ADVISORY: Court Consolidates Three Data Breach Cases EPIQ SYSTEMS: Whalen Sues Over Anticompetitive, Kickback Scheme ESSOR GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Herrera Says EXCELLENT AUTO: Law Firm's Motion to Quash Granted in Part FASTRUCK MOVING: Dollar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Two Claims in ERISA Suit FINDLAY MGMT: Court Signs Protective Order in Houston Casualty Suit FINDLAY MGMT: Court Wants Compliance With Directives in Kamakana FIRST CALL LAWN: Gray Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FLOWSERVE CORP: M&A Probes Merger With Chart Industries FRESHREALM INC: Mendez Suit Removed to E.D. California GEMINI EXPRESS: Blandon Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Muhammad Suit Over Vehicle Engine Failure GI ALLIANCE: Underpays IT Techinicians, Salazar Suit Says GLOBAL E-TRADING: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony Granted in Part GLOBAL E-TRADING: Court Rules on Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony GOOGLE LLC: Class Action Plaintiffs May Move for Summary Judgment GORES GUGGENHEIM: Rodriguez Balks at False Proxy Statements GRANT THORNTON: Class Settlement in Benjamin Suit Has Final Nod GREENSKY INC: Court Clarifies Order in Belyea, et al. Lawsuit HCA-INFORMATION: Class Settlement in Ipaye Suit Has Prelim. Nod HILTON GRAND: Wins Bid to Stay Discovery in McIntosh, et al. Suit HUMANS INC: Pedigree Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia I CASTLERY INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Says INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Johnston Files Suit in D. Utah J. DOERER: Class Certification Denied in Benoite Prisoner Suit JBS LIVE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Court Awards Attorneys' Fees in Securities Suit JOE'S CIRCLE CAFE: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Property JONA-SHAREGO LLC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Court Stays Karp, et al. Suit Due to Bankruptcy LANDMARK PROPERTIES: Moudgal Files Suit in M.D. Georgia LESLIE'S POOLMART: Cabral Suit Removed to C.D. California LEXISNEXIS RISK: Baker Sues Over Failure to Secure Information LGCY POWER: Dounane Suit Removed to N.D. California LOMAS PLAZA: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Property LOWA BOOTS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Williams Says LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Bid to Strike Report in Alms Lawsuit MARATHON ENTERPRISE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property MARIROSA LAMAS: Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Lee Wage Suit MDL 2873: Barnett Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: Brown Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Buskirk Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF/TOG Products MDL 2873: Cobler Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Faces Raymond Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS MDL 2873: Law Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Vanderborgh Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Watson Sues Over AFFF/TOG Products' Harmful Effects MDL 3047: Sullivan Suit Consolidated in Social Media PI Row MDL 3108: 4 Suits Consolidated in Change Healthcare Data Breach Row MDL 3114: 15 Suits Consolidated in AT&T Data Security Breach Row MDL 3143: Susman Godfrey Named as Interim Lead Class Counsel MICHIGAN: Court Refuses to Stay Judgment in Does v. Gov. Whitmer MILLER SQUARE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property MODERNA INC: Pak Sa Kim Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit MOHAMAD I. DAHAB: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property MOSAIC TERRAZZO: RB Sues Over Labor Union's Unfair Labor Practices MYFITNESSPAL INC: Discloses Web Visitors' Private Info, Shah Says NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Johnson Says NEW YORK CITY: Court Directs Satchell to Oppose Bid to Dismiss NEW YORK, NY: Court to Appoint Nunez Remediation Manager NEW YORK, NY: Discovery Requests in Briskin Suit Granted in Part NEW YORK, NY: Loses Bid to Keep Judicial Administrations Under Seal NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Pierre Suit Gets Preliminary Court Okay NEXTDOOR HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Hollingsworth Securities Suit OLD POINT: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With TowneBank ORGANON & CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 22 ORGANON & CO: Faces Hauser Suit Over Drop in Share Price PACTIV LLC: Reyes Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Overtime Wages PANT SAGGIN: Villaverde Suit Removed to S.D. Florida PATELCO CREDIT: Settles Cyberattack Class Action Suit for $7.25MM PENN MEDICINE: Sutton Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas PEPGEN INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit PIEDMONT AIRLINES: Dixon Suit Removed to N.D. California PLAYAGS INC: Court Dismisses Chowdhury Securities Lawsuit PROCTER & GAMBLE: Willis Sues Over Mislabeled Tissue Products RACK ROOM SHOES: Porcelli Suit Removed to S.D. Florida RANLIFE INC: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah RB GLOBAL: Ultra Home Sues Over Price-Fixing Scheme RED CAT: Faces Olsen Suit Over 21.54% Drop in Share Price RENT THE RUNWAY: Bid to Stay Sharma Case Discovery Granted in Part ROBERT F. KENNEDY: Jackson Files Suit in D. Columbia SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lease Class Allegations SCENARIO B: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SELECTQUOTE INC: Lightfoot TCPA Case Dismissed Without Prejudice SELIP & STYLIANOU: Wentzell FDCPA Suit Remanded to State Court SHING FAT: Faces Vasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. SITIO ROYALTIES: M&A Investigates Sale to Viper Energy ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cyber Attack STATE FARM: Court Declines to Stay Young Insurance Lawsuit STRATEGY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 15 TCI TEXARKANA: Howard Sues Over Seeking to Receive Overtime Pay TD SYNNEX: Smith Wage Lawsuit Remanded to State Court TELEPHONE AND DATA: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit TETRA TECH: Settlement in Brown Suit Obtains Final Approval THURSDAY BOOT: Faces Lee Suit Over Deceptive Consumers' Junk Fees TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Wilson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York UNION PACIFIC: Wins Summary Judgment in Donahue, et al. Lawsuit UNITE HERE: Data Security Settlement Obtains Final Court Nod USERTESTING INC: Court Dismisses Dickerson's 2nd Amended Complaint VALVE CORP: Court Request Supplement Briefing in Abbruzzese Case VENTURE GLOBAL: FirstFire Suit Transferred to S.D. New York VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Bid to File Exhibits Under Seal VESTIS CORP: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors VILLAGE CONCEPTS: Quintanilla Files Class Suit in Wash. State Court VIRGINIA: $1.6-Mil. Settlement in Puryear v. Dotson Has Final OK VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Windsor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VROOM INC: Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit WALASHEK INDUSTRIAL: Court Won't Stay Murgas Class Suit WALMART INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss McLean Product Recall Lawsuit WHIRLPOOL CORP: Costa Loses Bid for Reargument of March 21 Order WW INTERNATIONAL: Court Stays Giorgio Lawsuit Due to Bankruptcy XTO ENERGY: Wins Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions in Kriley Suit YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Maglione Says ZOETIS INC: Stephens Suit Removed to D. Nevada ZULILY LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Smith, et al. WARN Act Lawsuit ********* 3M COMPANY: Kennedy Sues Over Chemical Contaminated Water --------------------------------------------------------- Melva Kennedy, Adam Sager, Peggy Rainbow, James Ratcliffe, Maryann White, Curtis Hanson, and Wilma Gillespie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-04833-RMG (D.S.C., June 3, 2025), is brought on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated users of drinking water supplied by Public Water Systems (the "Proposed Class Members") arising from the widespread contamination of water intended for distribution to consumers and users with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), a family of chemical compounds that includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). The Defendant's PFAS are manufactured compounds that are toxic and bioaccumulative and do not biodegrade, thus, causing them to persist in the environment, move readily through soil and groundwater, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. The Defendant developed, manufactured, formulated, distributed, sold, transported, stored, loaded, mixed, applied and/or used Defendant's PFAS with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment when used as directed, instructed and/or intended. As far back as 1979, if not earlier, Defendant 3M was aware that Defendant's PFAS would be and have been used, released, stored, and/or disposed of at, near or within the vicinity of the drinking water supplies of the Proposed Class Representatives and Proposed Class Members, and that they would enter the environment, migrate through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating or threatening to contaminate the drinking water supplies of the Proposed Class Representatives and Proposed Class Members. Nevertheless, Defendant elected to develop, manufacture, formulate, distribute, sell, transport, store, load, mix, apply and/or use Defendant's PFAS, thereby placing profits over human health and the environment. As a result of their exposure to Defendant's PFAS that were applied, used and/or disposed of as directed, instructed and/or intended by Defendant 3M, numerous discrete PFAS chemicals have been detected in Public Water Systems' drinking water supplies at substantial levels and/or are threatened with such detection. The Proposed Class Representatives bring this action, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant to recover any and all relief with respect to the decades-long and ongoing contamination of their water supply created by Defendant's PFAS, as well as any and all punitive damages available as a result of the actions and/or inactions of Defendant, and to ensure that Defendant, as the responsible party, bears such expense, rather than the Proposed Class Representatives and Proposed Class Members, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs Public Water System is contaminated with Defendant's PFAS. 3M manufactured, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold PFAS-containing products, such as AFFF, throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Phillip D. Barber, Esq. RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A. 1410 Laurel Street (29201) Post Office Box 1090 Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: (803) 252-4848 Facsimile: (803) 252-4810 Email: pdb@harpootlianlaw.com - and - Fletcher Trammell, Esq. TRAMMELL PC 3262 Westheimer, #423 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (800) 405-1740 Facsimile: (800) 532-0992 Email: fletch@trammellpc.com - and - Robert W. Cowan, Esq. BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC 1360 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77056 Phone: (713) 425-7100 Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 Email: rcowan@bchlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Trevino Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Trevino, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03628-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Valverde Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Valverde, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03629-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Weinberg Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Rick Weinberg, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03630-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com ABRUZZO DOCG: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Liz Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO LIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABRUZZO DOCG, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04360 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://taralluccievino.net, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Abruzzo Docg Inc. is a boutique company based in New York, NY, specializing in the import and distribution of high-quality Italian wines. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com AMB HTD BEACON: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. AMB HTD BEACON CENTRE, LLC; FAMILY MC & D INVESTMENTS LLC; SS HAMMOCKS JM LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-22525-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described Commercial Property, and with respect to the allegations of this Complaint. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. AMB HTD BEACON CENTRE, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motions in Limine in Quinton Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motions in limine in the case captioned as TERRY GAYLE QUINTON, SHAWN O'KEEFE, RAN ANDREW AMEND, DAVID MOSKOWITZ, ni a 56 6 INGO CRC) NATE THAYER, RICKY AMARO, NANCI- "GV-506 (NGG) URC) TAYLOR MADDUX, ABIGAIL BAKER, WYATT COOPER, JAMES ROBBINS IV, MARILYN : BAKER, SHERIE MCCAFFREY, ALLIE STEWART, ELLEN MAHER, DEBBIE TINGLE, ANGELA CLARK, EMILY COUNTS, and SARAH GRANT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-O0566-NGG-JRC (E.D.N.Y.). Amex's motions in limine are also granted in part and denied in part. Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' and Defendants American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.'s respective motions in limine, numbering seven in total. The parties oppose each other's motions. The parties submitted their fully briefed motions in limine on Feb. 21, 2025, and their proposed jury instructions, verdict forms, voir dire, and, in the case of Plaintiffs, a : statement of damages, on Feb. 28, 2025. Trial in this case is set to begin on July 28, 2025. Both parties move in limine requesting several rulings in advance of trial. Plaintiffs move in limine to preclude: (1) evidence or argument concerning the absence of Plaintiffs during trial; (2) cumulative expert testimony; (3) certain third-party publications; and (4) evidence or testimony concerning the Class Representatives' adequacy. Amex moves in limine to preclude: (1) testimony and exhibits from United States v. Am. Express Co., No. 10-CV-4496 (NGG) (RER) (E.D.N.Y.) (the "DOJ Action"); (2) any evidence of damages purportedly suffered by a class of plaintiffs from Alabama before Jan. 29, 2017, as barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and (3) testimony of Amex's in-house counsel, Katherine Currie. The Court rules as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' request that the Court preclude Amex from offering evidence or argument concerning the absence of the Class Representative Plaintiffs or other Plaintiffs during the trial is denied without prejudice to renewal should Amex retreat from its current position at trial. Additionally, should Amex decide to raise this issue at trial, Amex is directed to provide the Court and Plaintiffs with 24 hours' notice of its intent to do so. 2. Plaintiffs' request that the Court bar Amex from introducing "cumulative" expert testimony at trial pursuant is denied without prejudice to renewal. 3. Plaintiffs' request that the Court preclude Amex from using 123 documents with their experts on direct examination is granted in full as to DX-547, DX-549, DX-552, DX-553, DX-562, DX-563, DX-567, DX-603, DX-604, and DX-605; granted in part as to DX-323, DX-463, and DX-470, to the extent that if a particular expert did not disclose these documents as relied upon, Amex may not read that document into evidence via that witness or solicit testimony from that witness regarding that document; and denied without prejudice to renewal as to the remaining 110 documents. 4. Plaintiffs' request that the Court exclude all evidence concerning the Class Representatives' knowledge of antitrust law and the claims asserted is denied without prejudice to renewal. 5. Plaintiffs' request that the Court exclude all evidence of the Class Representatives' relationships to counsel is denied. 6. Plaintiffs' request that the Court exclude all evidence concerning the circumstances surrounding the Class Representatives' retention of counsel is granted. 7. Plaintiffs' request that the Court exclude all evidence concerning the Class Representatives' agreement with counsel on attorneys' fees and costs is granted. 8. Amex's request that the Court preclude certain testimony and exhibits from the bench trial in the DOJ Action is granted. 9. Amex's request that the Court preclude evidence of alleged damages suffered by the Alabama Class prior to Jan. 29, 2017 is denied as procedurally improper. 10. Amex's request that the Court preclude Plaintiffs from calling an Amex in-house counsel, Katherine Currie, as a fact witness at trial, is denied. Ms. Currie may testify regarding (1) the information provided to and relied upon by her, whether through communications with individuals or review of documents, in answering the interrogatories; (2) the particular source of that information; and (3) non-privileged communications between Ms. Currie and her human sources about said information that occurred in the course of investigating and answering the interrogatories. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2dXHcu from PacerMonitor.com. AMERICAN HEALTH REFORM: Fox Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Health Reform Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Andira Fox, Ralph Gibson, Jr., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. American Health Reform Solutions, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-01449 (M.D. Fla., June 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. American Health Reform Solutions -- https://americanhealthmarketplace.com/ -- simplifies the process of finding suitable Medicare plans for clients in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Miles Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- JOHN W. MILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDY FRAIN SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05706 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and the Class personally identifying information, including names and Social Security numbers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed a duty to the Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its current and former employees' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all persons whose PII was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, which the Defendant detected on or about October 23, 2024. Andy Frain Services, Inc. offers security services. The Company provides security and guards for business, transportation, retail, sports, entertainment, and special events. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. Riley W. Prince, Esq. Nicholas W. Blue, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com rprince@barnowlaw.com nblue@barnowlaw.com APOTEX CORP: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the indirect reseller plaintiffs' motions for final approval of the class action settlement as to Apotex Corp. in the consolidated case IN RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL NO. 2724 (E.D. Pa.). The following Settlement Class, which the Court previously preliminarily certified, is certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure solely for purposes of this Settlement: All dispensers of drugs (including Clinics, Hospitals and Independent Pharmacies) in the United States and its territories that purchased one or more Drugs at Issue from January 1, 2010 through March 5, 2024, including those that purchased directly from distributor AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., Red Oak Sourcing, LLC, The Harvard Drug Group, LLC, HD Smith LLC, McKesson Corporation, Morris & Dickson Co., LLC or Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc. or their subsidiaries; and (b) those that purchased indirectly from any Defendant in the MDL. This class excludes: (a) Defendants, their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; (b) entities owned in part by judges or justices involved in this action or any members of their immediate families (other than interests held as a passive investor in a publicly traded entity); and (c) all pharmacies owned or operated by publicly traded companies. The Settlement and its terms are finally approved as having been entered into in good faith, and as a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement as to the Settlement Class Members within the meaning of Rule 23. All Releasors are deemed to have released all Releasees from the Released Claims. As to Apotex, the Actions are dismissed with prejudice and, except as provided for in the Settlement Agreement, without costs. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=it3KEx from PacerMonitor.com. APPLE INC: Korean Publishers Sues Over Anticompetitive Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- KOREAN PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, KOREA ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION; DAN SCALISE, and PANGSKY CO., LTD., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-04438 (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Apple has been engaged in anticompetitive practices aimed at protecting its supra-competitive profits on iOS Apps. Specifically, until very recently, Apple has: (a) charged (and continues to charge) monopoly rents to iOS App developers, such as Plaintiffs and members of the putative Classes, in the form of commissions that have reached as high as 30% on in-app payments, which are payments made either in Apple's App Store or within iOS Apps themselves; (b) enacted policies and engaged in practices that have effectively prevented iOS App developers, such as Plaintiffs and members of the putative Classes, from distributing or selling iOS Apps on competing iOS App platforms; and (c) enacted policies and engaged in practices that have effectively prevented iOS App developers, such as Plaintiffs and members of the putative Classes, from steering consumers of iOS Apps toward competing iOS App distribution or payment processing services. As a result of Apple's anticompetitive policies and practices, Apple has successfully monopolized iOS App distribution and sales for more than a decade, thus reaping supra-competitive profits at the expense of both consumers and iOS App developers, such as Plaintiffs and members of the putative Classes, alleges the suit. Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital content, cloud and advertising services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Samuel Maida, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 Email: clebsock@hausfeld.com mlehmann@hausfeld.com smaida@hausfeld.com - and - Byung-Joo Lee, Esq. JIHYANG LAW FIRM Seohee Tower, 7/F 2583 Nambusunhwan-ro Seoul, Korea 06735 Telephone: (82) 2-3476-6002 Facsimile: (82) 2-3476-6607 Email: bjlee@jihyanglaw.com - and - YoungKi Rhee, Esq. WE THE PEOPLE LAW GROUP Chinyang Building, 7/F 47 Kyonggidae-ro, Seodaemun-gu Seoul, South Korea 03752 Telephone: (82) 2-2285-0062 Email: ykrhee@wethepeople.co.kr ARMADA SKILLED: Class Notice in Apodoca, et al. Wage Suit Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the plaintiffs' request for approval of the class notice and notice plan in the case captioned as BEVERLY APODOCA, GRETCHEN SCHMIDT, and NENA VIGIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARMADA SKILLED HOME CARE OF NM LLC, ARMADA HOME HEALTHCARE OF SOCORRO, LLC, and CHRISTOPHER TAPIA, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01071-KG-JFR (D.N.M.). Named Plaintiffs Beverly Apodaca, an occupational therapist, Gretchen Schmidt, and Nena Vigil, registered nurses, were Defendants' employees between 2017 and 2019. In their positions, Plaintiffs provided in-home healthcare services to patients. Plaintiffs allege Defendants wrongfully denied them and other home healthcare workers (HHWs) overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq., the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA), and the New Mexico Wage Payment Act (NMWPA). Plaintiffs' overarching allegation is Defendants violated the FLSA, NMMWA, and the NMWPA by knowingly failing to pay their home healthcare workers all overtime premium wages due for the overtime work they performed despite classifying them as non-exempt under the FLSA and eligible for overtime pay. Plaintiffs state Defendants maintained a policy and practice of paying home health workers on a "per event" basis for time spent visiting patients based on a set visit rate for each visit completed of a certain type. On May 28, 2020, the Court granted conditional certification of the FLSA collective class. On Dec. 4, 2024, the Court certified the Rule 23 class action and appointed class counsel. Plaintiffs' proposed class was certified under Rule 23(b)(3) as: "All individuals employed by Defendants home healthcare workers who worked full-time and were paid on a 'per event' basis in New Mexico, within the applicable statute of limitations." The Court understands Defendants' concern with double recovery. However, the Class definition appropriately limits the persons able to join this class action, the Court concludes. An employee that did not work full-time and was not paid on a "per event" basis will not be able to join the class action because they do not fit within the class definition. The Court finds the clean versions of the Class Notice are clear, concise, and provide notice in "plain, easily understood language" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The Notice also includes the information required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nR3GCu from PacerMonitor.com. ASTENJOHNSON HOLDINGS: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Graber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ASTENJOHNSON HOLDINGS LTD., Case No. 1:25-cv-00799-BBC (E.D. Wis., June 4, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's and all other hourly paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant, as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Finisher, and was most recently employed in the position of Lead Hand in July 2015. The Defendant is a manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com AURORA CANNABIS: Ontario Court Certifies CHS Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that thousands of Canadian cannabis users are hospitalized and diagnosed with Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome ("CHS") every year. CHS is a dangerous side effect that can develop from the regular use of cannabis products. CHS involves cyclical bouts of severe nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which can persist for days and can occur as often as once every five minutes. In extreme cases, CHS can result in organ failure and even death. On May 14, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a national class action which alleges that Aurora Cannabis Inc, and Aurora Cannabis Enterprises Inc. negligently failed to warn consumers of the risk of developing CHS posed by the regular use of their cannabis products. This means that the action can now proceed as a class action. No findings of liability have been made against the defendants. The action was commenced by V.T., a Canadian Forces veteran who was prescribed cannabis to treat medical conditions. V.T. purchased medicinal cannabis from the Defendants, and used it as prescribed, until they suffered two extreme bouts of nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain that were so severe V.T. had to be hospitalized. On the second E.R. visit, V.T. was diagnosed as suffering from CHS. The only certain cure for CHS is to stop consuming cannabis, which V.T. did, and is now symptom-free. None of the cannabis products that V.T. consumed contained any warning about CHS, nor is there any warning in the product monograph, or on Aurora's website. The claim alleges that the Defendants knew, or should have known, of the risk of CHS arising from the regular use of their cannabis products, but negligently failed to provide any warning to consumers or prescribing physicians about the risk that they could develop CHS. The class action seeks to recover damages for the Class Members who developed CHS. The class action is brought on behalf of all persons in Canada who purchased a Cannabis Product from Aurora Cannabis Inc. or Aurora Cannabis Enterprises Inc. (which includes MedReleaf) on or after February 1, 2014 to May 14, 2025 (the "Class Period") who were diagnosed or differentially diagnosed with CHS during the Class Period after consuming one or more Cannabis Products. Cannabis Products are the cannabis and/or synthetic cannabinoid resins, pills, lozenges, concentrates, oils, edibles, beverages, vapours, and raw and adulterated plant material cultivated, designed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, distributed, marketed, and/or sold by the Defendants. The allegations contained in the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim have not been proven in court, and the Defendants deny the Plaintiff's claims. [GN] BARON CAPITAL: DCVC's Bid to Enforce Subpoenas Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied as moot the motion of Data Collective II, L.P., DCVC Opportunity Fund, L.P., and DCVC Management Co, LLC to enforce the subpoenas in the case captioned as DATA COLLECTIVE II, L.P., et al., Petitioners, -v- BARON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT INC., Respondent, Case No. 25-mc-00057-JAV (S.D.N.Y.). Baron's motion for costs and fees is denied. DCVC are defendants in a securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Wang v. Zymergen Inc. et al., No. 5:21-cv-06028 PCP (N.D. Cal.). Petitioners served a subpoena duces tecum on Baron on Nov. 21, 2024. Petitioners served a second Rule 45 subpoena seeking testimony from Baron on Dec. 3, 2024. Baron began producing responsive documents on a rolling basis, indicating that it would complete its document production by the end of February 2025. Although Baron took no steps to move to quash the testimonial subpoena or object to it, it did not provide a date for the deposition before Petitioners commenced the instant proceeding. Fact discovery in the Underlying Litigation closed on Jan. 31, 2025. Pursuant to the Local Civil Rule governing the Underlying Litigation, motions related to fact discovery disputes must be brought within seven days of the close of fact discovery. To preserve their rights, Petitioners therefore brought this motion to enforce the subpoenas in the Southern District of New York, the District where Baron is located. Petitioners sought an order compelling Baron to comply with the subpoenas, or alternatively, for the dispute to be transferred to the Northern District of California pursuant to Rule 45(f). On April 14, 2025, Baron filed its opposition to the motion to compel. It contends that the motion to compel compliance with the subpoenas should have been withdrawn as moot. Baron also argues that Petitioners had not satisfied the standard for a transfer under Rule 45(f). Finally, it requests attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(B). Petitioners disputed that an award of fees and costs would be appropriate under Rule 37(a)(5)(B), arguing that they were required to file the motion in light of Baron's failure to timely comply with the subpoenas. In light of Petitioners' withdrawal of their motion to enforce the subpoenas, and the parties' agreement that the dispute regarding the subpoenas is now moot, the only issue remaining before the Court is Respondent's motion for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(B). Although the failure of Petitioners' counsel to promptly apprise the Court of the developments in the Underlying Litigation is troubling, the Court nonetheless finds that an award of costs and attorney's fees is not warranted. While Rule 37(a)(5) may be inapplicable, Rule 45 does impose its own set of obligations on parties and their counsel who serve subpoenas on third parties. Pursuant to Rule 45(d)(1), a party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The failure to abide by this requirement exposes the party or attorney to an appropriate sanction -- which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees. Applying that test in this case, there has been no argument presented that the subpoenas by their terms imposed an undue burden or expense on Respondent, the Court finds. Rather, the only arguments advanced by Respondent is that this miscellaneous action should not have been commenced in the first place because Baron was in the process of complying with the subpoenas when this motion was brought, and that the subpoenas should have been withdrawn once the Wang Court denied the motion for an extension of time. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hQy7A5 from PacerMonitor.com. BEST BUY: Removes Harper Class Suit to W.D. Mich. ------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of ALEX HARPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY CO., INC.; and BEST BUY STORES, L.P., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Whatcom (Case No. 25-2-00766-37) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 23, 202. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00979. The case is assigned to Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Best Buy Co., Inc. retails consumer electronics, home office products, entertainment software, appliances, and related services through its retail stores, as well as its web site. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander A Baehr, Esq. SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98104-2682 Telephone: (206) 676-7000 Email: alexb@SummitLaw.com - and - Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. Nicole C. Valco, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Email: melanie.blunschi@lw.com nicole.valco@lw.com BRISTOL HOSPICE: Rey, et al. Lawsuit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California remands the case captioned as DIANNA REY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRISTOL HOSPICE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-04039-JD (N.D. Cal.) to California Superior Court for the County of Alameda. The Court denied without prejudice a request by plaintiff Rey to remand the case to California state court on the basis of the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction with respect to defendant Optimal Health Services. Remand was denied because the complaint had been drafted for state court purposes and did not provide enough information for the Court to evaluate CAFA-specific issues such as the exception. Rey was granted leave to file an amended complaint to address the local controversy exception, and to file a renewed remand request. The amended complaint added substantial new factual allegations about Optimal Health. Rey filed a new request for remand on the basis of the amended complaint. The amended complaint plausibly alleges that the conduct of Optimal Health forms a significant basis of the claims and relief plaintiff seeks, and that greater than two-thirds of the members of the proposed classes in the aggregate are citizens of California. These are elements of the local controversy exception that defendants disputed in the prior remand proceedings. In opposition to the renewed remand motion, defendants contend only that a prior class action, Olmos v. Bristol Hospice - Inland Valley, LLC et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-02374-SVW (C.D. Cal. 2023), alleged similar facts and claims, and was filed within three years of the filing of this case. If so, remand may be barred. Defendants do not challenge application of the local controversy exception on any other basis. Olmos does not do the work that defendants ask of it. The Court finds the Olmos does not fit the bill as an "other class action" within the meaning of Section 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii) because the class allegations were dismissed at the very start of the litigation. It is certainly true, as defendants say, that Olmos was literally filed, but the salient fact is that it never proceeded independently as a class action. In light of this conclusion and the allegations in the amended complaint, the Court concludes there is every practical reason why the local action rule should apply in this case. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0mYwM8 from PacerMonitor.com. BRUCE FINK DDS: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bruce Fink, D.D.S., P.C. The case is styled as Sara Taylor, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Bruce Fink, D.D.S., P.C., Case No. 1:25-cv-03099-TWT (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Dr. Bruce Fink. Dr. Fink -- https://www.brucefinkdds.com/ -- is a general dentist that has focused his practice on implant dentistry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. Chinn Law Firm, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 955-7732 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com BULLDOG MARINE: Misclassifies Independent Contractors, Sellars Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHERY SELLARS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BULLDOG MARINE & CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00197 (E.D. Tex., May 28, 2025) seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs from the Defendant pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the Potential Class Members were misclassified as independent contractors and paid a fixed hourly wage for Bulldog Marine within the last three years, but did not qualify for any exemption for payment of overtime pay under the FLSA. Plaintiff Sellars and the Potential Class Members were paid on a fixed hourly basis without payment of any overtime premium pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week, alleges the suit. Bulldog Marine & Construction, Inc. is a marine construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr. HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 596-7100 Facsimile: bhommel@hommelfirm.com BURLINGTON CAPITAL: Court Affirms Discovery Ruling in Gibson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska overruled the objections of Josiah Gibson to the magistrate judge's decision with respect to discovery requests in the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSIAH GIBSON, on behalf of himself and on all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BURLINGTON CAPITAL PM GROUP, INC, and BURLINGTON CAPITAL PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00299 (D. Neb.). The magistrate judge's decision is affirmed. In this putative class action, plaintiff Josiah Gibson claims that defendants Burlington Capital PM Group, Inc, and Burlington Capital Properties, LLC, violated his and other employees' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 48-1201 et seq., and the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 48-1128 et seq. Burlington objected to Gibson's request for the contact information of its supervisors and managers. It pointed to Gibson's allegations that some of his damages were caused by property managers acting at the direction of corporate and prohibitions on contacting an adverse party's management level employees. For his part, Gibson sought to avoid producing his cell phone for the extraction of a slew of data -- including credit-card statements, communications, and locational data -- that Burlington asserts would indicate the amount of time Gibson was able to engage in personal activities during on-call time. On March 19, 2025, the magistrate judge held a telephone conference to resolve those issues. In part, the magistrate judge concluded Gibson could depose his managers but could not contact other managers or supervisors until they were identified as relevant to potential class members' claims. He further ordered Gibson to produce certain data from his on-call time, requiring the parties to choose a vendor to extract the data from his cell phone and split the cost of the extraction. Now before the Court is Gibson's Statement of Objections to the magistrate judge's Order. Gibson first argues the magistrate judge erred in limiting his ability to contact property managers who he now claims are putative class members themselves. He asserts the magistrate judge misapplied the rules surrounding communication with an opposing party's corporate managers. Burlington disagrees and asks the Court to overrule Gibson's objections. Gibson has not persuaded the Court that the magistrate judge's rulings meets either of these standards. Based on its review of the record in this case, including the recorded telephone conference, the Court finds the magistrate judge was well within his bounds in finding balanced solutions to the parties' discovery disputes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SCfDj4 from PacerMonitor.com. CABOT OIL: Dismissal of Shareholder Derivative Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the appeals styled Jody Ezell, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation; Treppel Family Trust U/A 08/18/18 Lawrence A. Treppel For the Benefit of Geri D. Treppel and Larry A. Treppel; John Hudson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus Dan O. Dinges; Scott C. Schroeder; Dorothy M. Ables; Rhys J. Best; Robert S. Boswell; Amanda M. Brock; Peter B. Delaney; Robert Kelly; W. Matt Ralls; Marcus A. Watts; Phillip L. Stalnaker; Robert L. Keiser, Defendants-Appellees; and Treppel Family Trust U/A 08/18/18 Plaintiff-Appellant, versus Dan O. Dinges; Scott C. Schroeder; Rhys J. Best; Matt Ralls; Dorothy M. Ables; Robert S. Boswell; Amanda M. Brock; Marcus A. Watts; Peter B. Delaney; Robert Kelley; Robert L. Keiser; Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation, Defendant-Appellees, No. 24-20050 (5th Cir.), Judges James E. Graves, Jr., Kurt D. Engelhardt and Andrew S. Oldham of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas of all the shareholders' claims with prejudice. In 2006, Cabot Oil & Gas Company, a Houston-based energy company, leased mineral rights from residents in Dimock Township in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and began fracking in the hopes of extracting natural gas or oil from the Marcellus Shale. In 2009, Cabot's fracking caused the explosion of a residential water well. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection investigated and concluded that Cabot's wells had been leaking methane gas into residential water supplies, in violation of environmental laws and regulations. The Department and Cabot entered the 2009 Consent Order, which found that Cabot failed to properly case and cement gas wells, Cabot's operations caused methane gas to migrate into residents' water wells, and Cabot failed to restore or replace affected water supplies, in violation of Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law and Oil and Gas Act. The 2009 Consent Order mandated that Cabot pay a $120,000 civil penalty and take all actions necessary to maintain compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations. Jody Ezell and other shareholders of the Cabot Oil & Gas Company brought a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of Cabot against Cabot's directors, alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties. The shareholders say the Board failed to exercise oversight of the company. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Cabot undertook little to no remedial work on its gas wells, the source of the gas migration problem, until 2018 --- eight years after having entered the 2010 Consent Order with the Department. This is so, contend the stockholders, because the directors accepted as ordinary the idea that Cabot would regularly defy environmental regulations and treat the corresponding and continuous penalties as simply the cost of doing business. They assert that the directors caused Cabot to issue material misrepresentations about whether its fracking activities complied with applicable environmental laws and regulations. They claim that a director engaged in insider trading. The Defendant Board members filed a motion to dismiss the suit. In January 2024, the district court dismissed the operative complaint with prejudice, holding that the record did not allow the inference that the defendants are guilty of a serious failure of oversight sufficient to support an inference of bad faith. Absent bad faith, plaintiffs could not make out a Caremark liability claim. Regarding the disclosure claims, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs did not plead particularized allegations supporting a reasonable inference that Dinges, Ables, Boswell, Brock, and Watts face a substantial likelihood of liability for knowingly causing Cabot to issue material misrepresentations, and, as a result, demand futility is not established as to the disclosure claims. The district court also found that plaintiffs failed to establish demand futility as to their Brophy insider trading claim. The Circuit Judges affirm the district court's Rule 23.1 dismissal of the shareholder's Caremark claim because they failed to show demand futility. They hold, "The shareholders fail to plead -- with sufficient particularity -- any facts that undermine what the Section 220 documents show: the Board offered language that can reasonably be understood to be an accurate portrayal of Cabot's remediation efforts. The shareholders, thus, have failed to demonstrate that some directors faced a substantial likelihood of liability for knowingly causing Cabot to issue material misrepresentations. Accordingly, the shareholders failed to establish that demand of the board would have been futile so as to excuse their failure to make a demand of the Board. We therefore affirm the district court's Rule 23.1 dismissal." The Circuit Judges conclude that as the shareholders' Caremark and material misrepresentation claims fail, even if they succeeded on the Brophy claim against a single director that influenced two others, they would still not be able to demonstrate demand futility as to at least half of the board—as is required to excuse the Rule 23.1 demand requirement. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z6Mtdn CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Faces Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping ---------------------------------------------------------- J.T.; and E.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE, doing business as BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-04343 (N.D. Cal., May 21, 2025) Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, and California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants violated Plaintiffs' and Class Members' trust because, without their knowledge or consent, the Defendant embedded code on its Website that shared their Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information with unrelated companies, including Google LLC (vis-a-vis Google Analytics and Google Ads), and potentially other marketing platforms and downstream third-party businesses. As a result of Defendant's violations of the UCL, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury in fact and lost money or property, including but not limited to payments to Defendant and/or other valuable consideration, e.g., access to their private and personal data. The unauthorized access to Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private and personal data also has diminished the value of that information, says the suit. California Physicians' Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides group and individual term life, accidental death and dismemberment, vision, and stop loss insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. P. Camille Guerra, Esq. Jennifer L. Connor, Esq. 110 Laurel Street, Esq. CASEY GERRY FRANCAVILLA BLATT LLP San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 Email: gmb@cglaw.com camille@cglaw.com jconnor@cglaw.com CAPTIONCALL LLC: Settlement in Brady Suit Obtains Final Court Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Anne R. Traum of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as BRENDA BRADY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CAPTIONCALL LLC; DOES 1 through 50; inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00164-ART-NJK (D. Nev.). The Court confirms as final the following settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "all hourly paid non-overtime exempt persons employed by Defendant in the state of Nevada who earned less than 1 1/2 times the applicable minimum wage and who worked over eight (8) hours in a twenty-four (24) hour period and were not paid overtime properly in accordance with Nevada law at any time from November 24, 2018 until October 22, 2024." The Court confirms the appointment of Brenda Brady as the Class Representative and the enhancement payment of $15,000.00 to Brenda Brady, as set forth in the Settlement. The Court confirms the appointment of Christian Gabroy, Esq., and Kaine Messer, Esq., of Gabroy | Messer as class counsel for the settlement class and approves their requests for attorneys' fees of $675,000.00. The class notice was distributed to class members, pursuant to this Court's orders, and fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other applicable law. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court grants final approval to this Settlement and finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects, including the attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement award provisions. The Court specifically finds that the settlement confers a substantial benefit to settlement class members, considering the relative strength of plaintiff's claims and defendant's defenses and the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of further litigation. The response of the class supports settlement approval. No class members objected to the settlement and only three requested exclusion from the settlement. The Court further finds that the settlement is the result of arms'-length negotiations between experienced counsel representing the interests of both sides, which supports approval of the settlement in accordance with the standards set forth in the joint motion for final approval of settlement. The Court finds the Settlement was entered into in good faith. It further finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the standards and applicable requirements for final approval of this class action settlement. The Court finds that, as of the date of this Order, each and every class member has waived and released claims as set forth in the Settlement and Notice of Proposed Settlement and Hearing Date for Court Approval. The Court finds that the Claims Administrator ILYM Group, Inc. is entitled to $14,250.00 for administrative fees. As of the date of the Court's Final Order and Judgment, each and every Class Member is and shall be deemed to have conclusively released the Released Claims as against the Released Parties. In addition, as of the date of the Court's Final Order and Judgment, each Class Member who has not submitted a valid request for exclusion is forever barred and enjoined from instituting or accepting damages or obtaining relief against the Released Parties relating to the Released Claims. The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IBV2qd from PacerMonitor.com. CATHOLIC CHARITIES: Vaughn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Catholic Charities CYO of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, et al. The case is styled as Lavern Vaughn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Catholic Charities CYO of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, a California nonprofit corporation, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC25625912 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 4, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Catholic Charities -- https://catholiccharitiessf.org/ -- is a beacon of hope for people experiencing homelessness and individuals struggling to survive.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152 Phone: 213-985-1150 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Court Tosses Amended Securities Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion & Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the lawsuit styled IN RE CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-02613-PAE (S.D.N.Y.). Lead Plaintiff Hamilton Bailey brings this putative class action under the federal securities laws against Defendant Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. ("Checkpoint"), a biopharmaceutical company, and its CEO James F. Oliviero. The putative class consists of all persons (other than the Defendants) who purchased securities of Checkpoint between March 10, 2021, and Dec. 15, 2023 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint ("AC") claims violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5, the corresponding rule promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The AC's gravamen is that Checkpoint misled the market about its regulatory risk profile--centrally, its prospects of receiving approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for marketing a novel skin cancer therapy, cosibelimab. Pending now is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the AC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For reasons set forth in this Opinion & Order, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the AC in its entirety. Checkpoint, based in Waltham, Massachusetts, is a biopharmaceutical company that acquires, develops, and commercializes cancer treatments. Since October 2015, Oliviero has served as Checkpoint's CEO and President. Lead Plaintiff Bailey acquired Checkpoint securities during the Class Period. Checkpoint is a small company, so it contracts with third parties to manufacture its products on a commercial scale. On Oct. 2, 2020, Checkpoint entered into an agreement with Samsung Biologics under which Samsung was to commercially manufacture cosibelimab. The Plaintiffs' claims center on the Defendants' statements about the FDA approval process for cosibelimab, which was Checkpoint's "lead product candidate" during the Class Period--that is, the furthest along in the development-to-commercialization pipeline. Cosibelimab is an antibody used in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma ("CSCC"), a form of skin cancer. The AC alleges, among other things, that several statements made by the Company were misleading for failure to disclose that, between June 22, 2016, and March 30, 2023, 10 FDA inspections of Samsung had resulted in the issuance of Form 483s. On April 5, 2024, Plaintiff James Moore filed this putative securities class action on behalf of all individuals, who purchased shares of Checkpoint between March 10, 2021, and Dec. 15, 2023. That same day, notice of this action was published in News Wire. On June 21, 2024, the Court granted an unopposed motion by Plaintiff Hamilton Bailey to be appointed lead plaintiff and to have his attorneys, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, be appointed lead counsel. On Aug. 23, 2024, Bailey filed the operative AC. On Oct. 23, 2024, the Defendants moved to dismiss, and filed a memorandum of law in support. The Defendants mount two principal challenges to the AC. First, they argue that it does not adequately allege falsity. Second, they argue that it fails to raise a strong inference of scienter. Judge Engelmayer opines that the Defendants are correct on each point. For these two independent reasons, Judge Engelmayer explains, the AC does not meet the exacting pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). The Court, therefore, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court dismisses the AC with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants, and to close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5t4bv6h8 from PacerMonitor.com. CHRISTOPHER LAROSE: A.M. Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christopher Larose, et al. The case is styled as A.M., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Christopher Larose; Pamela Bondi Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; Jason Aguilar, Chief Counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement San Diego; Sidney Aki, Director of Field Operations, San Diego Field Office U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Gregory J. Archambeault, Director of U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) San Diego; U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement; Core Civic; Respondent, Case No. 3:25-cv-01412-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal., June 4, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily Howe, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EMILY E HOWE 405 Via del Norte, Suite B La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (619) 800-6605 Email: emh@howelaws.com CIVITAS RESOURCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Civitas Resources, Inc. (NYSE: CIVI) between February 27, 2024 and February 24, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important July 1, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Civitas Resources securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Civitas Resources class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36337 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 1, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (1) Civitas was highly likely to significantly reduce its oil production in 2025 as a result of, among other things, declines following the production peak at the DJ Basin in the fourth quarter of 2024 and low TIL count at the end of 2024; (2) increasing its oil production would require Civitas to acquire additional acreage and development locations, thereby incurring significant debt and causing Civitas to sell corporate assets to offset its acquisition costs; (3) Civitas' financial condition would require it to implement disruptive cost-reduction measures including a significant workforce reduction; (4) accordingly, Civitas' business and/or financial prospects, as well as its operational capabilities, were overstated; and (5) as a result, Civitas' public statements were false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. To join the Civitas Resources class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36337 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: L. B. Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against DaVita, Inc. The case is styled as L. B., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cleo Communications, Inc., The Hertz Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-50245 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cleo Communications LLC, simply referred to as Cleo -- https://www.cleo.com/ -- is a privately held software company founded in 1976.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM: Smith Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cooper Health System. The case is styled as Jacqueline Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Cooper Health System, Case No. 1:25-cv-06904 (D.N.J., June 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cooper University Hospital -- http://www.cooperhealth.org/-- is a teaching hospital and biomedical research facility located in Camden, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Rosewood Suit Over Mislabeled Baby Wipes ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELLA ROSEWOOD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and ICE-PAK PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02892 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against the Defendants regarding the false and deceptive marketing and sale of Kirkland Signature Baby Wipes. According to the complaint, Costco represents to consumers that the Products are "plastic free" and "made with Naturally Derived Ingredients." The Plaintiff's testing, however, reveals that the Product contains significant levels of microplastics, exposure to which can cause a range of harmful human health consequences -- especially when exposure begins at a young age. The presence of microplastics 1s especially concerning considering that the Product is meant for use on newborns and young children, that children are more vulnerable to exposure to microplastics, and that microplastics build up over time and accumulate in the body, increasing the risk of disease later in life, says the suit. The complaint alleges that Defendants Costco Wholesale Corporation and Nice-Pak Products, Inc.'s conduct violates business and state consumer protection laws, constitutes a breach of express and implied warranties, and results in unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Rosewood purchased Costco Kirkland Signature Baby Wipes for her infant beginning in July 2024 and again in March 2025. Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box warehouse club retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Telephone: (914) 693-2018 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Bullard, et al. PFAS Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Costco Wholesale Corp.'s motion to dismiss the the first amended complaint in the class action lawsuit captioned as LARISA BULLARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-03714-RS (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Larisa Bullard alleges in this putative class action that Kirkland "Signature Baby Wipes, Fragrance Free," which are manufactured by defendant Nice-Pak Products, Inc. and marketed and sold by defendant Costco Wholesale Corp., are unfit for their intended use because they contain unsafe levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). A motion to dismiss the original complaint was granted with leave to amend on grounds that while the allegations were sufficient to support standing, Bullard had not offered a sufficient factual basis that would, if presented at trial, support a fact-finder's conclusion that Kirkland Baby Wipes include PFAS of a type and in quantities to cause the alleged harms. Defendants move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, contending Bullard has still not presented sufficient facts to support a plausible claim the product contains PFAS of a type and quantities that cause harm. Now, however, Bullard has alleged the three specific PFAS chemicals she contends were found in the product, and in what quantities. Were it Bullard's burden to cite to scientific evidence clearly showing these particular PFAS at these quantities and through this exposure mechanism are "toxic" or unduly hazardous, defendants' various arguments as to why she has not done so might carry the day. Defendants likely are correct that citations in the complaint to the conclusions of an unnamed "expert" are not facts. Defendants also have shown that at least some of Bullard's assertions are not supported by the sources on which she relies, in the current complaint or in the original complaint. Nevertheless, the viability of Bullard's claims does not turn on her ability to prove the identified PFAS in the product are actually unsafe, even though the issue in this motion is not standing, per se. Having now named the chemicals, Bullard has stated sufficient facts to support a plausible claim of economic injury, the Court finds. Under current pleading standards, the motion to dismiss must be denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R96eWV from PacerMonitor.com. COX AUTOMOTIVE: Leadum Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Sean Leadum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COX AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03120-JPB (N.D. Ga., June 4, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed to a group of similarly situated individuals who were subject to a common unlawful pay policy. The Defendant uniformly classified employees holding the position of Technical Support Specialist, and other similar roles involving the triage and coordination of technical support cases, as exempt from overtime pay, and paid them on a salaried basis. These employees regularly worked over 40 hours per week but were not paid time-and-a-half their regular rate of pay for overtime hours. The primary duties of these employees were non-exempt in nature and included structured support tasks such as triaging support tickets, coordinating issue resolution, and assisting with quality assurance and documentation--duties which do not meet any exemption under the FLSA. The Defendant knew or should have known that the duties performed by these employees did not satisfy the requirements for exempt status under the FLSA. As a result of the Defendant 's unlawful compensation policy and practices, Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals were denied overtime compensation required by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is currently employed by Cox Automotive as a Technical Support Specialist. Cox Automotive Corporate Services, LLC is a foreign limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware and registered to do business in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger W. Orlando, Esq. THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C. 315 West Ponce De Leon Avenue, Suite 400 Decatur, GA 30030 Phone: (404) 373-1800 Fax: (404) 373-6999 Email: roger@orlandofirm.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5279 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com CROWDVEST LLC: Johnson's Bid to Compel Discovery Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge J. P. Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery in the lawsuit titled CYNTHIA JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. CROWDVEST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01293-JPS (E.D. Wis.). In October 2024, Plaintiff Cynthia Johnson filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant Crowdvest LLC for routinely violating 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2) by delivering more than one advertisement or marketing text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC Registry") without prior express invitation or permission. The Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading or otherwise defend against the action following timely service of process. In January 2025, the Plaintiff requested, and the Clerk of Court entered, default against the Defendant. The Plaintiff then moved the Court to conduct limited discovery related to a forthcoming motion for class certification. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion on March 13, 2025. Later in March, the Defendant--in its first and only filing on the docket--filed a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery from the Defendant and request for a status conference, and the Plaintiff's separate motion to strike the Defendant's Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, and denies the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendant's Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. In moving to compel, the Plaintiff requests four forms of relief from the Court: (1) a finding that the Defendant has waived all of its objections, (2) an order compelling the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's discovery requests, (3) an award to the Plaintiff for her reasonable attorneys' fees in moving to compel discovery; and (4) the scheduling of a status conference related to the issue of the Defendant's sporadic participation in this case. The Court grants all forms of relief except for the status conference. In the present case, Judge Stadtmueller notes that the Defendant has declined to file a response to the Plaintiff's motion to compel or in any other way defend its failure to provide responses to the Plaintiff's discovery. The Defendant has, therefore, clearly failed to show good cause for its lack of timely objections. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant has waived all objections to the Plaintiff's previously served discovery. The Court has already determined that the Plaintiff is entitled to conduct limited discovery related to class certification and damages prior to moving for default judgment. In moving to compel, the Plaintiff provides ample authority to support that the discovery she seeks is reasonably calculated to lead to information relevant to class certification and damages. Because the Defendant failed to respond to the Plaintiff's motion, it has waived any arguments to the contrary, Judge Stadtmueller opines. The Court will, accordingly, grant the Plaintiff's motion and order the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's previously served discovery. Judge Stadtmueller notes that the Defendant has failed to respond to the Plaintiff's discovery requests entirely and it has failed to indicate when or whether it will respond, despite the Plaintiff's numerous inquiries. Because the Defendant's conduct necessitated the Plaintiff's motion to compel, the Plaintiff made several good faith attempts to obtain the discovery prior to moving to compel, and the Defendant has not demonstrated any reason why an award of expenses would be unjust--indeed, the Defendant has not defended against the Plaintiff's motion in any way--the Court will award the Plaintiff her reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in moving to compel. Accordingly, Judge Stadtmueller says, the Plaintiff will be ordered to file a statement of reasonable attorneys' fees related to moving to compel, along with any supporting documentation. The Defendant will then be ordered to pay the Plaintiff in accordance with that statement, or to otherwise challenge its reasonableness, within 60 days of its filing. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court schedule a telephonic status conference to afford the parties an opportunity to address the bizarre procedural posture involving the Defendant's pseudo-participation in the case. The Court does not typically hold hearings in this situation, instead ruling based on the written motions and relevant authority. Each issue that is currently before the Court will be disposed of within this Order. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for a hearing. To the extent that the Plaintiff finds a hearing necessary in the future, she may again move for one and the Court will consider whether it is warranted at that time. The Plaintiff now moves the Court to strike the unaccepted Rule 68 offer, though its argument leaves the Court wondering whether it wants the offer stricken from the docket, declared ineffective, or both. Per the Court's protocols, the Plaintiff conferred with the Defendant prior to filing the motion and certifies that the Defendant's counsel stated that he would look into the issue, but did not commit to a voluntary withdrawal. The Defendant did not respond to the motion and, therefore, has waived any arguments in opposition to striking the filing. The Plaintiff makes several arguments in support of striking the Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, none of which the Court finds persuasive. Among other arguments, the Plaintiff argues that the Rule 68 offer was "wrongly filed." While that may be the case, Judge Stadtmueller says the Plaintiff provides no support for the Court's authority to strike the offer simply because the Plaintiff believes it should not have been filed, especially when the Defendant has not conceded that it was filed in error. The Court denies the Plaintiff's motion to strike insofar as it seeks a declaration that the Defendant's Rule 68 offer is ineffective. Accordingly, the Court will also deny the Plaintiff's motion to strike insofar as it seeks that the Defendant's Rule 68 Offer be stricken from the record. This portion of the relief, however, will be denied without prejudice. If the Plaintiff believes that it can bring a good faith motion to strike the Rule 68 offer from the docket, it may renew that portion of the motion, taking care to provide pertinent authority by which the Court should grant such relief. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2nk2zdtc from PacerMonitor.com. DESJARDINS FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit for $7MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- On April 24, 2025, Desjardins Financial Services Firm Inc., Desjardins Global Asset Management, The Personal Insurance Company, Desjardins Financial Security, Desjardins Securities Inc., Caisse Centrale Desjardins, Federation des caisses Desjardins du Québec, Collabria Financial Services Inc., Desjardins Shared Services Group Inc., Desjardins Technology Group Inc., Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company, and Desjardins Investment Product Operations Inc., and Assistel Inc. ("Desjardins") and the representative plaintiff have agreed to settle a class action, CV-21-0002102-00CP, commenced in 2021, on behalf of Desjardins employees, alleging that Desjardins was not entitled to recover the negative vacation bank amounts from employees without their consent. Without any admissions of liability, the settlement provides that the Desjardins will pay an all-inclusive sum in excess of $7 million to settle the class members' claims and to also pay legal fees and the cost of distributing the settlement funds. Desjardins has ceased to apply the policy which led to negative vacation banks for some existing employees. The matter was certified on consent for settlement purposes on May 28, 2025. The settlement approval hearing before the Superior Court of Justice is scheduled on September 29, 2025. The action was certified for all former employees outside of Quebec who were employed by Desjardins Financial Services Firm Inc., Desjardins Global Asset Management, The Personal Insurance Company, Desjardins Financial Security, Desjardins Securities Inc., Caisse Centrale Desjardins, Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, Collabria Financial Services Inc., Desjardins Shared Services Group Inc., Desjardins Technology Group Inc., Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company, and Desjardins Investment Product Operations Inc., and Assistel Inc. (collectively "Desjardins") between May 1, 2011 and August 13, 2017, were subject to the Policy and who were terminated or left Desjardins prior to April 24, 2025, other than those who executed a termination agreement releasing their claims for vacation pay on or before July 31, 2024. If you are a former employee of Desjardins and fall within the class definition, you are automatically included as a member of the class unless you opt out. All members of the class will be bound by the settlement reached by the parties once it is approved by the Court. If you wish to exclude yourself from the proceeding, you must complete an opt-out form no later than July 27, 2025. Any objections to the settlement should be filed by July 14, 2025. The opt-out form, the objection form and more information about the class action is available at https://www.monkhouselaw.com/desjardins-negative-vacation-bank-class-action/ About Toronto-based Monkhouse Law Employment Lawyers: We're an employment law firm specializing in wrongful dismissal, human rights law, and denied long-term disability claims, and we also have a strong track record with Class Action cases representing employees in Canadian Workplaces. Monkhouse Law has filed numerous class actions against Canadian companies for shortchanging employees on employment entitlements. Monkhouse Law has certified and settled class actions against Approval Team, Deloitte, Workforce, Spectrum, AE Hospitality, VIB and Solar Brokers and has certified actions against other big employers such as Bank of Montreal, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva Insurance Co., Allstate and Medcan Health Management Inc. for vacation pay violations. Andrew Monkhouse, Esq. Monkhouse Law Tel: (416) 907-9249 ext. 225 [GN] DEVS FOODS: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------- Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. DEVS FOODS 4 LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-06870 (D.N.J., June 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). The Plaintiff encounters architectural barriers at many of the places that she visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be arduous and even dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The Plaintiff has visited the Property on several occasions, her last visit as a patron of the occurred on or about March 22, 2025. The Plaintiff visited the Property as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public within but found, during each of her visits, that the Property was littered with violations of the ADA, both in architecture and policy. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired persons. DEVS FOODS 4 LLC, owns or operates a public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend Shareholder Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar General Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a shareholder securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. On November 27, 2023, and November 30, 2023, respectively, the following putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in which the plaintiffs allege that during the putative class periods noted below, the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting the impact of alleged store labor, inventory, pricing and other practices on the Company's financial results and prospects: Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Dollar General Corporation, et al. (Case No. 3:23-cv-01250) (putative class period of May 28, 2020 to August 30, 2023) ("Washtenaw County"); Robert J. Edmonds v. Dollar General Corporation, et al. (Case No. 3:23-cv-01259) (putative class period of February 23, 2023 to August 31, 2023) ("Edmonds") (collectively, the "Shareholder Securities Litigation"). The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, equitable/injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The Edmonds matter was voluntarily dismissed on January 19, 2024. On April 4, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the Shareholder Securities Litigation. On June 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, adding a claim that lead plaintiffs and certain members of the putative class purchased shares of the Company's common stock contemporaneously with common stock sales by certain individual defendants. On October 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, expanding the putative class period to cover May 28, 2020 to August 28, 2024. On November 15, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint, and briefing on Defendants' motion has been completed. At this time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted in the Shareholder Securities Litigation or the potential range of loss in this matter, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. However, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of the Shareholder Securities Litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole. Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer in the United States with 19,726 stores located in 48 U.S. states and Mexico as of November 3, 2023, with the greatest concentration of stores in the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States. DONALD J. TRUMP: Court Decertifies Class in A.S.R. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), Judge Stephanie L. Haines of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania decertifies the class in the case captioned as A.S.R., On his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly-situated, Petitioner, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, In his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Respondents, Case No. 25-cv-00113-SLH (W.D. Pa.). Petitioner A.S.R. brings this lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241, challenging Respondents' attempt to remove him from the United States pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 21, and the Proclamation issued by President Donald J. Trump on March 14, 2025, entitled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua", 90 Fed. Reg. 13034. Simultaneous with his initiation of this habeas action, on April 15, 2025, A.S.R. filed a Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, along with an accompanying Brief in Support. In the Motion, A.S.R. requested an order certifying the following class in this matter pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2): "All noncitizens in custody in the Western District of Pennsylvania who were, are, or will be subject to the Proclamation and/or its implementation." On April 25, 2025, amid the expedited and emergency nature of this case, the Court issued a Memorandum Order regarding class certification without requesting a response from Respondents. In that Memorandum Order, the Court certified the following class: All noncitizens in custody in the Western District of Pennsylvania who were, are, or will be subject to the Proclamation and/or its implementation, who have not been given fourteen (14) days' notice following the Supreme Court's decision on April 7, 2025, Trump v. J.G.G., [145 S. Ct. 1003 (2025)], and "an opportunity to challenge their removal" under the AEA." On May 5, 2025, the Court held a preliminary injunction hearing. At the hearing, the parties discussed class certification. There, the government voiced its objections to class certification. Subsequent to that hearing, the Court now sua sponte considers whether to decertify the class announced in its Memorandum Order at ECF No. 45. A.S.R. argues that the proposed class easily meets the numerosity requirement because: (i) several weeks ago, the government identified nationwide 86 people in detention subject to the Proclamation and 172 more who are at liberty; (ii) the government has engaged in extensive enforcement actions in the Northeast region, and Moshannon Valley Processing Center -- the processing center in this District where A.S.R. was detained -- is a detention hub for Northeast ICE detention; (iii) more individuals will be designated under the Proclamation; and (iv) class members are frequently dispersed in different detention facilities prior to rapid staging for removal. Although the government did not brief the class certification issue, it nonetheless opposes class certification, as demonstrated at the preliminary injunction hearing. At the hearing, the government informed the Court that, to its knowledge, there are currently zero individuals in the Western District of Pennsylvania who have been designated under the AEA for detention or removal. Even A.S.R. has since been moved from Moshannon Valley. In other words, the government articulated, A.S.R. is requesting to certify a class that has no members. The Court agrees with the government's opposition and holds that A.S.R. fails to meet the numerosity requirement for class certification. The Court finds that the class is not so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Regarding the class size, in his Brief, A.S.R. states that there are at least 172 individuals within the proposed class. That statement incorrectly casts a nationwide scope for the proposed class members. Rather, in his Motion and Brief, A.S.R. is requesting to certify a class that is limited explicitly to detainees in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Court, however, possesses no evidence that there is a single noncitizen in custody in the Western District of Pennsylvania who was, is, or will be subject to the Proclamation and/or its implementation. Accordingly, the Court finds that the size of the proposed class in this case -- zero -- favors denial of class certification. The Court also finds that the factor of the ease of identifying members and determining addresses favors denial of class certification. The geographical dispersion factor favors denial of class certification. In Trump v. J.G.G., the Supreme Court held that the district to resolve a challenge such as A.S.R.'s is the district of confinement. Thus, there is no geographical dispersion of the proposed class outside of the confines of the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Court finds. The Court has also no evidence to find that the proposed members of the class would be unable to pursue remedies on an individual basis. Accordingly, this factor favors the denial of class certification. In sum, an examination of the following factors favors the practicability -- not the impracticability -- of joinder: the size of the class, ease of identifying members and determining addresses, ease of service on members if joined, geographical dispersion, and whether proposed members of the class would be able to pursue remedies on an individual basis. Therefore, A.S.R.'s proposed class fails to meet the numerosity requirement, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iz2zsr from PacerMonitor.com. EISNER ADVISORY: Court Consolidates Three Data Breach Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the plaintiffs' joint motion to consolidate the following related cases: (1) CHRISTOPHER NIOSI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EISNER ADVISORY GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-1409-LMP-DTS; (2) ANDREW MARSTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EISNER ADVISORY GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-1568-LMP-DTS; and (3) ROBERT CRIST and REBECCA L. LEMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EISNERAMPER LLP and EISNER ADVISORY GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-1573-LMP-DTS. On April 8, 2025, Defendant Eisner Advisory Group LLC -- an accounting and auditing firm -- gave public notice that it suffered a data breach in September 2023 that affected more than 85,000 individuals. Shortly thereafter, Christopher Niosi and Andrew Marston (individually) and Robert Crist and Rebecca L. Lemmons (jointly) filed separate class action complaints against Eisner, asserting claims arising out of that data breach. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' joint motion to consolidate the three cases and to appoint interim co-lead counsel pending class certification. The Court grants the joint motion and consolidates the three cases into case number 25-cv-1409 under the caption In re Eisner Advisory Group Data Breach Litigation. According to the Court, the three complaints in this case undoubtedly involve common questions of law and fact. Each relates to Eisner's September 2023 data breach, and each asserts similar, if not identical, legal claims. And each Plaintiff seeks to represent all similarly-situated individuals nationwide. Because the plaintiffs' claims each arise out of the same data breach, contain overlapping causes of action, and seek to represent the same class of individuals, all of the actions will involve common questions of law and fact. Consolidating the cases will also promote judicial efficiency and avoid unnecessary costs and delays. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' unopposed request to consolidate. Plaintiffs further ask the Court to approve an interim co-lead class counsel structure in which Carl V. Malmstrom (counsel for Niosi), Philip J. Krzeski (counsel for Marston), and Marc H. Edelson (counsel for Crist and Lemmons) are appointed as co-lead counsel, and David A. Goodwin (counsel for Crist and Lemmons) is appointed as liaison counsel. The Court is assured that each of the proposed lead counsel, together with their respective firms, could be appointed as interim lead counsel. Malmstrom, Krzeski, and Edelson, and the firms at which they work, have extensive experience as lead counsel in other nationwide class actions, experience dealing with classes alleging claims like those here, and ample resources to effectively litigate the case moving forward. The Court finds considering the circumstances presented in this case, appointment of co-lead counsel is appropriate. The alleged data breach affected 85,000 individuals across the country, suggesting that the class is potentially numerous The Plaintiffs all agree to the proposed structure. And co-lead counsel represent to the Court that they are working well as a team and have already discussed the need to prosecute the case efficiently and without duplication. The Court ordered as follows: 1. Niosi v. Eisner Advisory Group LLC, No. 25-cv-1409 (D. Minn.); Marston v. Eisner Advisory Group LLC, No. 25-cv-1568 (D. Minn.); and Crist v. EisnerAmper LLP, No. 25-cv-1573 (D. Minn.) are consolidated for pretrial and trial proceedings. 2. Niosi v. Eisner Advisory Group LLC, No. 25-cv-1409 (D. Minn.), as the firstfiled case, shall serve as the lead case. 3. All future filings shall be filed in the lead case and shall be ar the caption: In re Eisner Advisory Group Data Breach Litigation. 4. After the Plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint, the Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close case numbers 25-cv-1568 and 25-cv-1573, and to add all parties and attorneys of record from the related cases to the lead case: No. 25-cv-1409. 5. Carl V. Malmstrom of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Philip J. Krzeski of Chestnut Cambronne PA, and Marc H. Edelson of Edelson Lechtzin LLP are appointed interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, and David A. Goodwin of Gustafson Gluek PLLC is appointed interim Liaison Counsel, for the Consolidated Action. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cMPfyf EPIQ SYSTEMS: Whalen Sues Over Anticompetitive, Kickback Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY JANE WHALEN, MONICA MEILOAICA, and CHASOM BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., ANGEION GROUP LLC, JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION, HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK, and DOES 1 20, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04522 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2025) is a class action against the Administrator Defendants for engaging in a deceptive and anticompetitive scheme to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed kickbacks and compensation from the Bank Defendants, while increasing the costs and payouts on thousands of class actions. Defendants Epiq Solutions, Inc., Angeion Group LLC, and JND Legal Administration are collectively referred here as the "Administrator Defendants," while Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank are collectively referred as the "Bank Defendants." Class action administrators, like the Administrator Defendants in this case, are responsible, among other things, for providing notice to class members, reviewing and approving claims, and ultimately distributing funds to class members. They also ordinarily participate in the selection of the bank where settlement funds are deposited pending distribution to class members. The complaint asserts that Administrator Defendants have agreed, in exchange for secret kickbacks, to divert settlement deposits to the Bank Defendants even though the Administrator Defendants know those banks pay a lower rate of interest than the rate paid by major banks that do not pay kickbacks. The Bank Defendants' kickbacks are paid with the specific purpose and intent of inducing the Administrator Defendants to breach their duties, undertakings, and representations to and for the benefit of the class members whose money the Administrator Defendants administer. Allegedly, some time on or about 2021 -- when the interest rates in the United States started rising -- Administrator Defendants entered into an ongoing agreement with each other to increase the cost and price of class administration services, including by having Bank Defendants pay them the interest and investments earned on class action settlement deposits that would have otherwise been distributed to class members and used to pay down the cost of class administration services. The Plaintiffs bring this action to bring an end to Defendants' clandestine practices, enjoin them from continued use of the kickbacks for their own benefit, to compensate the class members for the harm caused by Defendants' illegal conduct, and to stop the anticompetitive practices that the Defendants have carried on, which has depressed payouts substantially in class actions in the United States. Epiq Systems, Inc. is the largest settlement administration company in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Mark C. Mao, Esq. Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 44 Montgomery St., 41st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 293-6800 E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com brichardson@bsfllp.com - and - James Lee, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 100 SE 2nd St., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 E-mail: jlee@bsfllp.com - and - Alison L. Anderson, Esq. Samantha Parrish, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1520 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 629-9040 E-mail: alanderson@bsfllp.com sparrish@bsfllp.com - and - Michael Mitchell, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Ave, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 E-mail: mmitchell@bsfllp.com ESSOR GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Herrera Says --------------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESSOR GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04247 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://zitsticka.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Essor Group, Inc. operates as a brand of cosmetic products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal EXCELLENT AUTO: Law Firm's Motion to Quash Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Krissa M. Lanham of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted in part and denied in part Denton Peterson Dunn, PLLC's amended motion to quash in the class action lawsuit captioned as Darrin Riffle, Plaintiff, v. Excellent Auto Glass LLC, Defendant, Case No. MC-25-00017-PHX-KML (D. Ariz.). Darrin Riffle filed a putative TCPA class action against Excellent Auto Glass LLC in the Western District of Washington. EAG did not respond to the complaint and Riffle was granted leave to conduct discovery to support his planned motion for default judgment. As part of that discovery, Riffle sent Arizona-based law firm Denton Peterson Dunn, PLLC a subpoena seeking effectively all documents in the firm's possession regarding EAG. The firm filed a motion to quash and, after Riffle filed his opposition, an amended motion to quash. The amended motion to quash included a privilege log. According to the amended motion to quash, the firm has a longstanding relationship with one of the owners of EA and has provided legal advice to that owner concerning general business matters. Although the firm does not represent EAG in the pending suit in Washington, it did provide EAG, and the owner of EAG advice concerning the claims made in the lawsuit. The firm did not provide an affidavit from EAG stating it wished to assert the privilege but it did provide a privilege log. In opposing the original motion to quash, Riffle argued the firm had made an improper blanket claim of privilege. Riffle also argued the lack of an affidavit from EAG stating EAG wishes to assert the privilege dooms the motion because EAG, not the firm, is the holder of the attorney-client privilege. Riffle's decision to send a broad subpoena to a law firm raises obvious concerns regarding intrusions into the attorney-client relationship. Riffle argues the firm has no attorney-client relationship with EAG because the firm unambiguously claims it does not represent EAG. The Court finds that although there is reason to doubt the basis for Riffle's subpoena, he is entitled to an affidavit from EAG that it has an attorney-client relationship with the firm and wishes to invoke the attorney-client privilege. The firm's recent production of a privilege log also allows Riffle to review the basis for the privilege assertion. Once EAG produces an affidavit and Riffle has reviewed the privilege log, there will be a sufficient basis to resolve the remaining disputes, if any. Within thirty days of this order, EAG must provide an affidavit to Riffle stating it has an attorney-client relationship with the firm and that it wishes to assert the privilege to prevent disclosure of the documents. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p1NxRo from PacerMonitor.com. FASTRUCK MOVING: Dollar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fastruck Moving, LLC. The case is styled as Corey Ryan Dollar, on behalf all others similarly situated v. Fastruck Moving, LLC, Case No. 25STCV16084 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Fastruck Moving Company -- https://www.fastruckmoving.com/ -- offers specialized luxury appliance moving services for premium brands like SubZero, Miele, Viking, Thermador, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Fax: (818) 914-3433 Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Two Claims in ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action asserted in the operative second amended complaint in the case captioned as TERA BOZZINI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-05667-AMO (N.D. Cal.). In this putative class action, Tera Bozzini and Adrian Gonzales assert claims against Ferguson Enterprises, LLC and the Retirement Plan Committee of the Ferguson Enterprises, LLC 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S. Secs. 1001 et seq. The two causes of action Ferguson challenges concern the alleged mishandling of forfeited funds, i.e., contributions made on behalf of Ferguson employees who leave the company before becoming fully vested. Ferguson's alleged misuse of those funds -- by using them to reduce Ferguson's contribution obligations instead of offsetting expenses -- is the basis for Plaintiffs' second cause of action for breach of the duty of loyalty under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104(a)(1)(A), and their third cause of action for engaging in a prohibited transaction within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1106(a)(1)(A). Ferguson argues that the claims are new, rest on factual allegations not pleaded in Plaintiffs' prior complaint, and offer new theories of liability, in violation of the Court's Aug. 30, 2024 dismissal order. Ferguson also argues that the alleged mishandling of forfeited funds is insufficient to state a claim for breach of the duty of loyalty or a prohibited transaction. In filing their second amended complaint, Plaintiffs have introduced a new legal theory in violation of the Court's Order. The prior iteration of the complaint, which spanned 100 pages and asserted eight causes of actions, made no mention of forfeited contributions at all, much less that their mishandling gave rise to the duty of loyalty and prohibited transactions claims asserted in that pleading. Plaintiffs now want to change the theory of their original duty of loyalty and prohibited transactions claims. While several plaintiffs have recently challenged a practice by which retirement plan administrators use forfeited plan funds to reduce their own administrative expenses instead of offsetting administrative costs to plan participants, to the extent Plaintiffs seek to assert this theory in this action, they have not obtained Ferguson's consent or leave of Court. Accordingly, dismissal of claims two and three is appropriate for this reason alone, the Court finds. Even if Plaintiffs had properly obtained Ferguson's consent or leave of Court, the claims would nonetheless fail as currently pleaded. Plaintiffs allege that Ferguson opted to use nearly all forfeited funds -- approximately $18 million -- to reduce its contribution obligations, instead of saving the plan and its participants millions in administrative expenses. According to Plaintiffs, by exercising discretion to direct forfeited funds only for the plan's benefit rather than the benefit of plan participants, Defendants violated their duty of loyalty to plan participants. According to the Court, more is required to state a viable claim for breach of the duty of loyalty. A copy of the Court's Order dated May 29, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VyYVIV from PacerMonitor.com. FINDLAY MGMT: Court Signs Protective Order in Houston Casualty Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Houston Casualty Company, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff v. Findlay Management Group, a Nevada Domestic Corporation, Defendant; Findlay Management Group, a Nevada Domestic Corporation, Defendant/Counterclaimant, v. Houston Casualty Company, a Texas corporation; Syndicate 2623 and Syndicate 623 at Lloyd's, English business entities; United Specialty Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London: Syndicate BRT 2987, an English business entity; Syndicate KII 1618, an English business entity; Syndicate KLN 510, an English business entity; Syndicate TMK 1880, an English business entity; Syndicate AUL 1274, an English business entity; Syndicate AES 1225, an English business entity; Aspen Specialty Insurance Company, a North Dakota corporation; Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company, a New York corporation; Lloyd's Underwriters Syndicate No. 4444 CNP (Acrisure); West Chester Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Chubb), Counter-defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01459-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada signed the Parties' Stipulated Protective Order (Amended) relating to confidential discovery materials. Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Stipulated Protective Order is entered into by and among the Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Houston Casualty Company ("HCC") and Defendant and Counterclaimant Findlay Management Group. On April 15, 2025, Findlay filed its Amended Counterclaim, which added certain excess insurance carriers as parties to this case. Although they have not yet formally appeared in the case, Findlay and HCC offered the newly-added counterdefendants to join as signatories to this Stipulated Protective Order. They either declined or did not respond. The Parties believe that judicial oversight of this Stipulation is necessary and appropriate and there is good cause for entry of this Stipulation as a Protective Order because, among other reasons: (i) the confidentiality obligations set forth here involve the rights of third parties, such as insurance brokers, including that third parties must "submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada for enforcement of the Protective Order"; (ii) this Stipulation contemplates motion practice before the Court where disagreements may exist, including the challenges to confidentiality designations made pursuant to this Protective Order and the Court having continuing jurisdiction over certain issues, including preservation of materials; and (iii) this insurance coverage dispute arises out of a cyber attack and the Parties believe the Court's oversight will ensure the utmost protection of confidential information that may be exchanged in discovery, which may include the private/personal information of individuals (including social security numbers), nonpublic financial information of Findlay, and/or non-public information of HCC and other insurers. Further, the cyber attack giving rise to this insurance coverage dispute is also the subject matter of two consolidated class actions pending before the Court -- Smith v. Findlay Automotive, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01226-RFB-EJY (Consolidated with No. 2:24-cv- 01227-APG-BNW)). A Stipulated Protective Order was entered by Magistrate Judge Youchah in that consolidated class action. Since there is likely to be overlap between discovery across the cases and the Court has already accepted judicial oversight of that stipulated protective order in the consolidated class action, the Parties request there be the same judicial oversight of this case for purposes of uniformity and consistency of results. The protections conferred by this Protective Order cover not only Confidential Discovery Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Confidential Discovery Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Confidential Discovery Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their counsel that might reveal Confidential Discovery Material. The Protective Order will become effective among the Parties immediately upon its execution, and will survive any settlement, discontinuance, dismissal, judgment or other disposition of the Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulated Protective Order dated May 19, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxahxvm from PacerMonitor.com. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3jkpjrnb from PacerMonitor.com. Juan Luis Garcia -- jgarcia@skarzynski.com -- SKARZYNSKI MARICK & BLACK, LLP, in New York, NY 10004; Craig J. Mariam -- cmariam@gordonrees.com -- Rachel L. Wise -- rwise@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, in Las Vegas, NV 89101, Attorneys for the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant. David A. Carroll -- dcarroll@rrsc-law.com -- Anthony J. DiRaimondo -- adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com -- Robert E. Opdyke -- ropdyke@rrsc-law.com -- RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP, in Las Vegas, Nevada 89169; Robert L. Wallan -- robert.wallan@pillsburylaw.com -- PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, in Los Angeles, California 90017-5524, Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Findlay Management Group. FINDLAY MGMT: Court Wants Compliance With Directives in Kamakana ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff(s) v. FINDLAY MANAGEMENT GROUP, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:24-cv-01459-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada wants parties seeking to file a confidential document under seal to comply with the Ninth Circuit's directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu. Concurrently with this Order, the Court is entering a blanket protective order to facilitate discovery in this case. Judge Koppe explains that this Order reminds counsel that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and records. A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal must file a motion to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit's directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court has adopted electronic filing procedures. Attorneys must file documents under seal using the Court's electronic filing procedures, citing Local Rule IA 10-5. Papers filed with the Court under seal must be accompanied with a concurrently-filed motion for leave to file those documents under seal. The Court has approved the blanket protective order to facilitate discovery exchanges. But there has been no showing, and the Court has not found, that any specific documents are secret or confidential. The Parties have not provided specific facts supported by declarations or concrete examples to establish that a protective order is required to protect any specific trade secret or other confidential information pursuant to Rule 26(c) or that disclosure would cause an identifiable and significant harm. Judge Koppe opines that the Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and records, and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to nondispositive motions must show good cause exists to overcome the presumption of public access. Parties seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must show compelling reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access. All motions to seal must address the applicable standard and explain why that standard has been met. The fact that a court has entered a blanket protective order and that a party has designated a document as confidential pursuant to that protective order does not, standing alone, establish sufficient grounds to seal a filed document, Judge Koppe opines, citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003); and Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). If the sole ground for a motion to seal is that the opposing party (or non-party) has designated a document as confidential, Judge Koppe says the designator must file (within seven days of the filing of the motion to seal) either (1) a declaration establishing sufficient justification for sealing each document at issue or (2) a notice of withdrawal of the designation(s) and consent to unsealing. If neither filing is made, the Court may order the document(s) unsealed without further notice. Judge Koppe orders that counsel will comply with the requirements of Local Rule IA 10-5, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined here, with respect to any documents filed under seal. To the extent any aspect of the blanket protective order may conflict with this Order or Local Rule IA 10-5, that aspect of the blanket protective order is superseded with this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2bnpzb from PacerMonitor.com. FIRST CALL LAWN: Gray Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Shaun Gray, Jr. and Drake Gray, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. First Call Lawn Services and Toby J. Aldridge, Individually, Case No. 8:25-cv-01451 (M.D. Fla., June 4, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiffs worked substantial hours in excess of forty hours in a work week. The Plaintiffs were not compensated for various work responsibilities after arriving and returning to the shop each day, including drive time to and from the property site, vehicle maintenance, vehicle loading and fueling, vehicle and equipment cleanup and preparation. The Plaintiffs would only start getting paid once they arrived at the first property site and stop getting paid once the work was completed at the last property site. Plaintiffs were paid straight time for all hours worked. The Defendants failed to keep accurate time records regarding the hours Plaintiffs worked. Plaintiffs estimate they regularly worked between forty-three and sixty hours or more in a week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began his employment on March 23, 2024, in the position of Crew Member. First Call, is a Florida corporation, licensed and authorized to conduct business in Hillsborough County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Troy Longman II, Esq. FLORIN | GRAY 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Phone (727) 220-4000 Facsimile (727) 483-7942 Email: wflorin@floringray.com tlongman@floringray.com FLOWSERVE CORP: M&A Probes Merger With Chart Industries ------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Flowserve Corporation (NYSE: FLS) related to its merger with Chart Industries, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Flowserve shareholders will own approximately 46.5% of the combined company. Visit link for more info: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/flowserve-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] FRESHREALM INC: Mendez Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Maria Isabel Mendez, as an individual, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. FRESHREALM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0004362 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01566-DC-JDP. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for, inter alia, FreshRealm's alleged failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide timely wage payments upon separation, and provide accurate itemized wage statements. Plaintiff also alleges FreshRealm committed acts of unfair competition as defined by the California Unfair Business Practices Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Diyari Vazquez, Esq. Melissa N. Eubanks, Esq. VGC, LLP 9461 Charleville Blvd. #757 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (424) 272-9855 Email: dvazquez@vgcllp.com meubanks@vgcllp.com GEMINI EXPRESS: Blandon Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Blandon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GEMINI EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORP. and HENRY FUNG, Case No. 1:25-cv-04665 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"). Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff worked up to sixty-five hours per workweek, but Defendants failed to pay him at least one and one-half times his regular hourly wage rate for hours worked over forty per workweek. The Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff with a wage notice at his time of hire and when his wage rate changed, and accurate wage statements with each payment of wages. The Defendants did not compensate Blandon for hours worked over forty per workweek at one and a half times his regular rate. The Defendants did not furnish Blandon with a wage notice within ten business days of his hiring, as required under the WTPA, setting forth their regular and overtime rates, pay dates, and other required information. The Defendants did not furnish Blandon with wage statements with each payment of wages, as required under the WTPA, setting forth per workweek their hours worked, wages rates paid, income deductions and withholdings, and other required information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a forklift operator, breakdown team leader, and truck loader and unloader at Gemini Express Transport Corp. Gemini is a freight solutions and logistics service provider that offers the public with Pickup and Delivery Cartage, Line Haul Services, Less Than Truck Load Services, Bonded CFS & Warehousing Services, and TSA CCSF – Export Screening services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq. Rachell Henriquez, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue – 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 583-9500 Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com cuadra@pechmanlaw.com henriquez@pechmanlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Muhammad Suit Over Vehicle Engine Failure --------------------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD and JEREMY MISKELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware corporation. Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02655-PD (E.D. Pa., May 23, 2025) is a class action arising from General Motors' failure to disclose a dangerous and widespread defect in the L87 6.2L V8 engine, which renders numerous GM vehicles unsafe, unreliable, and subject to catastrophic engine failure. According to the complaint, the engine defect results from internal mechanical failures -- including improperly machined crankshafts, defective connecting rods, oil contamination, and inadequate bearing tolerances -- that cause severe internal damage, excess oil consumption, loss of engine power, and, in many cases, complete engine failure. These failures often occur without warning and well within the warranty period, posing a significant safety risk to drivers and passengers. GM should have been aware of the Engine Defect since at least December 2021, when it updated Technical Service Bulletin 19-NA-218 to address issues with the L87 Engine's valvetrain components. Subsequent internal analyses and investigations confirmed serious manufacturing and assembly flaws in the L87 Engine. Despite this knowledge, GM did not disclose to consumers that the L87 Engine was defective, nor did it issue a formal recall until over three years later, says the suit. As a result of GM's omissions and concealment, the Plaintiffs, the proposed Class, and members of the public are now at risk of significant injury. The Plaintiffs and other Vehicle class owners have also suffered significant monetary harm: they overpaid for the Class Vehicles, which were advertised as rugged, reliable, durable, safe and fuel efficient, but in reality, are unsafe and dangerous. General Motors LLC markets and sells full-size pickup trucks and SUVs equipped with the L87 Engine under the Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac brands.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 917 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, Suite 600 Ridgefield, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 679-8656 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com rlm@classlawgroup.com - and - Brian E. Johnson, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 211 N. Union St., Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: bej@classlawgroup.com GI ALLIANCE: Underpays IT Techinicians, Salazar Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- JON-PAUL SALAZAR and MARTIN LEGACY on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GI ALLIANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01301-B (N.D. Tex., May 23, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime to Plaintiff and Class members in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were employed by Defendant as IT Technicians providing various forms of technical support, including helpdesk services, system maintenance, troubleshooting, and other IT-related duties. GI Alliance, Inc. operates a network of gastroenterology practices across the United States, with a significant presence in Texas, Illinois, and several other U.S. states.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth "BB" Sanford, Esq. THE SANFORD FIRM 2711 Hibernia St. Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (469) 361-9122 Facsimile: (214) 919-0113 - and - Shounak S. Dharap, Esq. Katherine A. Rabago, Esq. Robert C. Foss, Esq. ARNS DAVIS LAW 515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 Facsimile: (415) 495-7888 - and - John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson Blvd., St. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com GLOBAL E-TRADING: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted in part and denied in part the motion filed by plaintiffs to limit the expert testimony of defendants' experts Troy Carrothers and Lisl Unterholzner in the class action captioned as JANET SIHLER and CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC, d/b/a Chargebacks911, GARY CARDONE, and MONICA EATON, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-1450-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action against Defendants on June 28, 2023. The operative complaint is the third amended complaint, in which Plaintiffs assert two RICO claims: (1) for violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c) (Count 1) - a substantive RICO claim; and (2) for violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) (Count 2) - a RICO conspiracy claim. On Aug. 13, 2024, the Court certified a nationwide class in this RICO case. The case proceeded through discovery and each side hired experts. Now, Plaintiffs move to exclude the testimony of two of Defendants' experts, Troy Carrothers and Lisl Unterholzner. Mr. Carrothers is Defendants' rebuttal expert to Plaintiffs' payment processing industry expert. Plaintiffs take issue with certain opinions given by Mr. Carrothers, including that Value Added Promotions used by Global e-Trading before 2019 are commonly used marketing programs, as well as statements that Plaintiffs maintain are impermissible legal conclusions. Ms. Unterholzner, an accountant and certified fraud examiner, is Defendants' rebuttal damages expert. Plaintiffs take issue with certain opinions given by and analysis performed by Ms. Unterholzner, including her discussion of a The Fulfillment Lab spreadsheet with shipping addresses and her MID-by-MID and time-limited calculation of damages attributable to Global eTrading. After filing this Motion, Plaintiffs filed a notice withdrawing the portion of their argument that seeks to limit Ms. Unterholtzer's testimony based on the assertion that the data underlying the spreadsheet was not produced. Plaintiffs first seek to preclude Mr. Carrothers from offering testimony on his general understanding of the term Value Added Promotions, or VAP, including how other companies in the industry may use the term. They next seek to exclude Mr. Carrothers from opining that Johnny Deluca's VAP program may have served a legitimate purpose. They also seek to prevent him from offering color commentary on the evidence or speculating on activities of which he has no information. As to Mr. Carrothers' opinions on VAP generally and as offered by Mr. Deluca, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs. While the issues Plaintiffs point out give them ample ammunition for cross-examination, they do not warrant disqualifying Mr. Carrothers from testifying as an expert. To the extent Mr. Carrothers intends to offer the legal conclusion that he has seen no evidence in the record to support that Defendants' VAP program was fraudulent, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs. The Motion is granted in part and denied in part as to Mr. Carrothers. Plaintiffs seek to preclude Ms. Unterholzner from testifying about two subjects. They argue Ms. Unterholzner should not testify about whether any of the customer, email, or shipping data in the TFL Spreadsheet is valid or offer any opinions or conclusions about the deliverability of any shipment made by The Fulfillment Lab or the Keto Entities. They also seek to prevent Ms. Unterholzner from parsing or calculating damages in a way that is based on a piecemeal analysis of Defendants' activities with respect to the overall Keto enterprise. Regarding the TFL spreadsheet, Plaintiffs insist that Ms. Unterholzner has no specialized training or experience in USPS deliverability or its address correction process so she is no more qualified than any other witness (or juror) to look at an address to determine if that address is a valid address. Plaintiffs also take issue with Ms. Unterholzner's lack of methodology for her opinions related to the TFL spreadsheet. The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs. Because Ms. Unterholzner is a rebuttal expert, it is perfectly appropriate for her to question the documents upon which Plaintiffs' damages expert relied, such as the TFL spreadsheet. The Court declines to exclude Mr. Unterholzner's opinions or analysis regarding the spreadsheet or issues with the data contained therein. The Court agrees in part with Plaintiffs that Ms. Unterholzner's opinion regarding the damages calculation for certain time periods or certain MIDs should be excluded. To the extent Ms. Unterholzner intends to opine that Defendants can only be liable for damages incurred for certain times during which Global e-Trading was providing services to Brightree or for certain MIDs that Global eTrading serviced, that opinion is excluded as irrelevant and in violation of this Court's ruling. To the extent Ms. Unterholzner's report and opinions address flaws in Plaintiffs' expert's damages calculation because of incomplete data, this opinion is permissible. In short, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part as to Ms. Unterholzner. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zz0nu6 from PacerMonitor.com. GLOBAL E-TRADING: Court Rules on Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER and CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC, d/b/a Chargebacks911, GARY CARDONE, and MONICA EATON, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-1450-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla.), Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled on the following motions: (1) Defendant Global E-Trading, LLC's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Kenneth J. Musante, (2) Defendant Global E-Trading, LLC's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of of Kerrie Merrifield, (3) Defendant Global E-Trading, LLC's Motions for Oral Argument on its Daubert Motions, (4) Defendants Gary Cardone, and Monica Eaton's Joint Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Kenneth Musante, and (5) Defendants Gary Cardone, and Monica Eaton's Joint Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Kerrie Merrifield Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action against Defendants on June 28, 2023. The operative complaint is the third amended complaint, in which Plaintiffs assert two RICO claims: (1) for violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c) (Count 1) — a substantive RICO claim; and (2) for violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) (Count 2) — a RICO conspiracy claim. On Aug. 13, 2024, the Court certified a nationwide class in this RICO case. The case proceeded through discovery and each side hired experts. Now, Defendants move to exclude the testimony of two of Plaintiffs' experts, Kenneth Musante and Kerrie Merrifield. Mr. Musante is Plaintiffs' expert on the banking and credit card processing industries. In his report, Mr. Musante opines that Global e-Trading, which does business as Chargebacks911, provided critical and necessary support which allowed the fraudulent merchants to continue processing consumer payments. But for Global e-Trading's assistance, the fraud would have either been muted or ended much sooner than it otherwise did. Plaintiffs offer Mr. Musante to testify as an expert about: (i) how Card Brand networks work and their respective rules, (ii) the intricacies of chargebacks on card transactions, (iii) whether Global e-Trading's practices complied with the Card Brands' rules, and (iv) whether Global e-Trading's work with the Keto Entities prolonged the Keto Entities' ability to continue collecting payments on their keto pill websites. Ms. Merrifield is Plaintiffs' damages expert. She is a Certified Public Accountant and has over 35 years of experience accounting with an emphasis on forensic accounting and damages calculations. She was retained to review the documents and the shipping, refunds, and charge backs Excel spreadsheets produced in the case in order to determine the differences between amounts that were charged United States customers that purchased either the, buy 2, get 1 free (referred to as 3 bottles) or buy 3, get 2 free (referred to as 5 bottles) promotion of either Instant Keto, Ultra Fast Keto Boost, or Keto Boost products, and the amounts these customers expected to be charged and is offset by any refunds and charge backs. She opines that the total damages for the Keto Entities' diet pill scheme is $18,779,274. According to Plaintiffs, they offer Ms. Merrifield as an expert for only one thing: to filter and calculate numbers from hundreds of thousands of rows in a spreadsheet. Her assignment was to find select rows in a spreadsheet with values that fit into criteria that Plaintiffs' counsel provided and to perform math on those values. Defendants seek to limit Mr. Musante's testimony in numerous ways. Global e-Trading maintains that Mr. Musante's report includes numerous impermissible legal conclusions, lacks a reliable methodology, and would not be helpful to the jury and is irrelevant. Ms. Eaton and Mr. Cardone repeat many of Global e-Trading's arguments, as well as raising the additional argument that Plaintiffs should not be permitted to offer Mr. Musante's opinions regarding Global e-Trading's compliance with industry standards and norms against either Mr. Cardone or Ms. Eaton, nor should Plaintiffs be permitted at trial to offer any opinion regarding Mr. Cardone or Ms. Eaton's compliance with industry standards or norms. Mr. Cardone and Ms. Eaton insist that the opinions and testimony Mr. Musante does provide as to Mr. Cardone and Ms. Eaton should also be excluded because they lack support and are speculative. The Court disagrees with Defendants regarding Mr. Musante's methodology. According to the Court, Mr. Musante's methodology is sufficiently reliable to be presented to the jury. The Court agrees in part with Defendants regarding Mr. Musante's legal conclusions. While the Court understands Plaintiffs' position that Mr. Musante uses the words "fraud" and "fraudulent" in the vernacular sense, the Court is concerned with the potential to confuse the jury by use of these words with legal significance. It is likely a jury would believe Mr. Musante was offering a legal conclusion that certain transactions legally constituted fraud. Thus, Mr. Musante is prohibited from using the words "fraud" and "fraudulent" in offering his expert opinions. The Court will not exclude Mr. Musante's conclusions about causation. Thus, it is permissible for Mr. Musante to testify -- among other things -- that, in his opinion, Global e-Trading was instrumental in helping the Keto Entities continue accessing card processing and selling its keto diet pills to consumers. The Court will not exclude Mr. Musante's opinions to the extent they involve Mr. Cardone or Ms. Eaton under either Daubert or Rule 403. Defendants also seek to limit the testimony of Kerrie Merrifield. Global e-Trading insists that Ms. Merrifield is unqualified to offer certain opinions, her methodology is unreliable, and her opinions unhelpful to the jury such that her opinions should be excluded under Rules 702 and 403. Similar to Global e-Trading's arguments, Mr. Cardone and Ms. Eaton argue Ms. Merrifield's opinions should be excluded because her calculations are based on three Excel spreadsheets that contain data that either cannot be verified or is unquestionably incomplete. Additionally, Mr. Cardone and Ms. Eaton contend that Ms. Merrifield's damages opinions improperly assume that all purported damages to Class members are attributable to, and recoverable from, any defendant, including Ms. Eaton and Mr. Cardone. Plaintiffs insist that they are not offering Ms. Merrifield as an expert on consumer expectations. Although Ms. Merrifield's calculations required an assumption about what consumers expected to pay, the Court does not interpret Ms. Merrifield as offering an expert opinion regarding consumer expectations. The Court also determines that Ms. Merrifield's opinions and calculations will be helpful to the jury. It is certainly helpful to the jury to have an analysis of the voluminous data from the spreadsheets provided to them rather than reviewing all the data in the spreadsheets themselves to reach a damages calculation. Ms. Merrifield's damages calculation, made after sorting through the voluminous data, will help the jury decide what damages to award, if it finds Defendants liable. The Court finds Ms. Merrifield's methodology is sufficiently reliable. The Court will not exclude Ms. Merrifield's opinions under either Rule 403 or Rule 703. Ms. Merrifield's opinions and damages calculation is not unduly prejudicial to Defendants for the same reasons that the opinions are admissible under Daubert. The Court will not apply the extraordinary remedy of exclusion under Rule 403 to Ms. Merrifield's expert opinions. And Rule 703 explicitly allows experts to rely on inadmissible facts or data, such as hearsay statements. The Court ordered, adjudged, decreed as follows: (1) Defendant Global E-Trading, LLC's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Kenneth J. Musante is granted in part and denied in part. (2) Defendant Global E-Trading, LLC's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Kerrie Merrifield is denied. (3) Defendant Global E-Trading, LLC's Motions for Oral Argument on its Daubert Motions are denied. (4) Defendants Gary Cardone, and Monica Eaton's Joint Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Kenneth Musante is granted in part and denied in part. (5) Defendants Gary Cardone, and Monica Eaton's Joint Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Kerrie Merrifield is denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LGxovE from PacerMonitor.com. GOOGLE LLC: Class Action Plaintiffs May Move for Summary Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled In re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 21-md-03010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that plaintiffs in the Publishers Class Action, the Advertisers Class Action, the Gannett and Daily Mail Actions and the Inform Action may move for summary judgment limited to a claim or part of a claim for which it contends the doctrine of issue preclusion forecloses the defendant from relitigating in this action by reason of a final determination of the issue in Judge Leonie Brinkema's April 17, 2025 decision. Any such motion must be filed by June 20, 2025. The Court considers it useful, appropriate and efficient to first determine which issues, if any, are precluded by reason of the decision after trial in United States v. Google LLC, 1:23-cv-108 (ED Va. Apr. 17, 2025). A ruling by the Court on the preclusive effect of the April 17 E.D. Va. Decision may provide greater clarity as to unresolved issues on which the parties may then seek summary judgment or trial. Also, a ruling by the Court on issue preclusion may have some bearing on superiority and manageability. Defendant may respond to the motion by July 18, 2025. Plaintiffs may reply by Aug. 1, 2025. The Publisher Plaintiffs' application to file their pre-motion letter response under seal is provisionally granted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XO88yQ from PacerMonitor.com. GORES GUGGENHEIM: Rodriguez Balks at False Proxy Statements ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANK RODRIGUEZ AND KINA THOMAS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GORES GUGGENHEIM, INC. N/K/A POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE HOLDING UK PLC; ALEC E. GORES; ANDREW M. ROSENFIELD; MARK R. STONE; ANDREW MCBRIDE; RANDALL BORT; ELIZABETH MARCELLINO; NANCY TELLEM; THOMAS INGENLATH; JOHAN MALMQVIST; and PER ANSGAR, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05403 (D.N.J., May 23, 2025) is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all persons or entities other than Defendants who (1) purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Polestar between June 24, 2022 and January 16, 2025, both dates inclusive; and/or (2) beneficially owned and/or held the securities of Gores Guggenheim, Inc. as of the record date of May 18, 2022 and were provided the final proxy statement/prospectus filed pursuant to SEC Rule 424(b)(3) on May 25, 2022, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 14, 2024, the Company filed with the SEC its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023. According to the complaint, the Defendants' statements were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Polestar's financial statements during the Class Period were materially misstated; (2) Polestar understated its internal control weaknesses; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On this news, the price of Class A Polestar ADSs declined by $0.135 per ADS, or 11%, on higher-than-average volume, to close at $1.0850 on January 16, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Gores Guggenheim, Inc., n/k/a Polestar Automotive Holding UK PLC, operates as a blank check company. The Company aims to acquire one and more businesses and assets, via a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, and reorganization.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barry Gainey, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 375 Abbott Road Paramus, NJ 07652 Telephone: (201) 225-9001 Facsimile: (201) 225-9002 E-mail: bgainey@gme-law.com - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 260 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com GRANT THORNTON: Class Settlement in Benjamin Suit Has Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Southern District Court issued an Order granting final approval of proposed class action settlement and award of attorneys' fees and costs in the lawsuit captioned Todd Benjamin International, Ltd., and Todd Benjamin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Grant Thornton International, Ltd., Grant Thornton Cayman Islands, Grant Thornton Ireland, Bolder Fund Services (USA), and Bolder Fund Services (Cayman), Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-21808-RNS (S.D. Fla.). The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The settlement has been entered into between Plaintiffs Todd Benjamin International, Ltd., Todd Benjamin, Zbynek Dvorak, and Fawzi Bawab (together, the "Class Plaintiffs"); Jonathan Perlman, Esq. (the "Receiver"), as equity receiver for, among others, TCA Global Credit Fund, LP, TCA Global Credit Fund, Ltd., TCA Global Credit Master Fund, LP, and TCA Global Lending Corp. in SEC v. TCA Fund Management Group Corp. et al., No. 20-cv-21964-CMA (S.D. Fla.) (the "SEC Action"); Defendants Grant Thornton Cayman Islands and Grant Thornton Ireland (together, "Grant Thornton"); the Joint Official Liquidators appointed in a Cayman Islands court (the "JOLs"); and TCA Fund Management Group Corp.'s former officers and directors (the "Former Officers and Directors") as set forth in the Parties' settlement agreement. On May 19, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the motion. The Settlement Class is defined as follows: "All persons (excluding profiteers or investors who received back more than their principal investment and investors who opt out of the settlement) with a beneficial interest in or who invested in TCA Global Credit Master Fund L.P., including all investors in TCA Global Credit Fund, L.P. and TCA Global Credit Fund, Ltd."1 The members of the Settlement Class, who will be bound by this Class Final Approval Order, will include all members of the Settlement Class, who did not submit a timely and valid opt-out request. There have been no members of the Settlement Class, who have timely opted out. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court reaffirms Gibbs Mura LLP, Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP, Silver Law Group, and Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial to serve as Class Counsel. Based on its review, the Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also finds that the notice procedures set forth in the settlement agreement and carried out by the Receiver fully satisfy Rule 23, satisfy the requirements of due process, and were the best notice practicable, under the circumstances, in that the class notice provided individual notice to all Settlement Class Members, who could be identified through reasonable effort. The Court further finds that the notification requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, have been met. For these reasons, the Court grants final approval of the settlement. The parties will effectuate the settlement agreement according to its terms. The Court grants the Plaintiff's counsel's request for attorneys' fees of $6,220,500 to be paid from the GT Settlement Payments. The Court also grants the request to reimburse Class Counsel's costs in the amount of $175,790.05 to be paid from the GT Settlement Payments. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ad3hv59 from PacerMonitor.com. GREENSKY INC: Court Clarifies Order in Belyea, et al. Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part plaintiff's motion for clarification of a summary judgment order in the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREENSKY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01693-JSC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against GreenSky, alleging the company's business practices violate California consumer protection statutes. The amended complaint alleged: (1) violations of the Credit Services Act of 1984, (2) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and (3) unjust enrichment. GreenSky moved for summary judgment on each of Plaintiffs' claims under California's Credit Services Act and California's Unfair Competition law and for unjust enrichment. GreenSky's motion asserted Plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence to show that (i) their GreenSky Program merchants passed through to them any portion of the transaction fee the merchants paid GreenSky related to Plaintiffs' loans, or (ii) they paid any part of an incentive payment that Program banks paid to GreenSky pursuant to negotiated contracts between GreenSky and those lenders. Essentially, GreenSky argued Plaintiffs could not prove they were injured by paying transaction fees or performance fees, so Plaintiffs' claims relating to such payments could not survive summary judgment. In its order, the Court observed Plaintiffs' Credit Act, UCL, and unjust enrichment claims all require proof of injury. On this issue, Plaintiffs presented evidence creating a dispute of fact as to injury resulting from transaction fees, but Plaintiffs did not present evidence creating a dispute of fact as to performance fees. Regarding performance fees, while Plaintiffs presented evidence from which a factfinder could conclude GreenSky violated the Credit Act, Plaintiffs did not present evidence of a resulting injury as required by the Credit Act and Article III. So, the Court granted GreenSky's motion for summary judgment on the performance fee claims. Plaintiffs' motion for clarification is two-fold. They ask that the Court clarify its summary-judgment ruling to confirm that the Court did not construe the Credit Act's damages provision or otherwise rule on the scope of damages available under the Credit Act. They also ask that any clarification that the Court provides be consistent with the plain language of the Credit Act's damages-floor provision. At Plaintiffs' request, the Court confirms it did not decide whether the Credit Act permits Plaintiffs -- should they prevail -- to recover performance fees in addition to transaction fees. But the Court declines to provide further clarification by accepting Plaintiffs' (or GreenSky's) interpretation of the Credit Act, because this issue was not before the Court when it decided the summary judgment, class certification, and Daubert motions. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OPjydm from PacerMonitor.com. HCA-INFORMATION: Class Settlement in Ipaye Suit Has Prelim. Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, grants preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the lawsuit entitled MAJID IPAYE, ADEYINKA ADEOGUN, and PRINCILLAR AGYAPONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HCA - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES, INC. d/b/a CERECORE, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00635 (M.D. Tenn.). The matter has come before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court authorizes notice, for purposes of preliminary approval, to the following Settlement Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b): All individuals, who worked for the Defendant providing training and support to the Defendant's clients in using electronic recordkeeping systems in the United States between May 21, 2021, and Feb. 6, 2025. The Court certifies, for purposes of preliminary approval, the following Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: All individuals, who worked for the Defendant providing training and support to the Defendant's clients in using electronic recordkeeping systems in New Hampshire between May 21, 2021, and Feb. 6, 2025. The Court finds that, for purposes of preliminary approval, the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Majid Ipaye, Adeyinka Adeogun, and Princillar Agyapong to represent the Settlement Class Members for settlement purposes only. The Court appoints Harold L. Lichten and Olena Savytska of Lichten & LissRiordan, P.C. and Melody Fowler-Green and Chase Teeples of Yezbak Law Offices PLLC as Class Counsel. The Court appoints Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator. The Court concludes that the form of Notice at Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, as well as the procedure set forth in the Settlement Agreement for providing notice to the Settlement Class Members, will provide the best notice practicable under the facts and circumstances of this case. The parties and Settlement Administrator are ordered to provide notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and in conformity with this Order. The Court will conduct a Final Approval Hearing on Oct. 9, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., where it will make a determination on: (i) whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) the amount of attorneys' fees and costs that should be awarded to Class Counsel; and (iii) the amount of the Incentive Awards that the Named Plaintiffs should receive. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, and Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs, will be filed on or before Sept. 25, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/399uzdar from PacerMonitor.com. HILTON GRAND: Wins Bid to Stay Discovery in McIntosh, et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Philip R. Lamens of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Hilton Grand Vacations, Inc.'s unopposed motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned as ROY MCINTOSH and JACQUELINE MCINTOSH, Plaintiffs, v. HILTON GRAND VACATIONS, INC., formerly known as Bluegreen Vacation Club, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-487-WWB-UAM (M.D. Fla.). In this instance, Defendant has shown good cause and reasonableness to stay discovery pending resolution of its Motion to Compel Arbitration. Having taken the required "preliminary peek" at the Motion to Compel Arbitration, the motion is directed to the entire case and, if granted, would result in the Court staying the case pending completion of the arbitration proceedings, with the potential for Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant to be resolved in arbitration. While Plaintiffs have not filed a response in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration to date, the Court is satisfied that the motion has been filed in good faith. In weighing the harm produced by delaying discovery against the possibility that the Motion to Compel Arbitration will be granted, the balance tips in favor of staying discovery, the Court finds. As Defendant points out, allowing discovery to proceed in this action could undermine the purposes of arbitration, as it would incur unnecessary costs, engage in time-consuming discovery efforts into the merits of this matter, and waste resources that could have otherwise been preserved for arbitration. Further, Defendant's participation in discovery could be viewed as a waiver of arbitration. Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendant's request for a stay pending resolution of the Motion to Compel Arbitration, and therefore, given this representation, staying discovery will not cause the Plaintiffs any significant harm. In sum, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause to stay discovery in this matter pending resolution of the Motion to Compel Arbitration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bSjNRB from PacerMonitor.com. HUMANS INC: Pedigree Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humans, Inc. The case is styled as Yahni Pedigree, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Humans, Inc. doing business as Flip, Case No. 1:25-cv-03100-AT (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Humans, Inc., doing business as Flip -- https://itsflip.com/ -- provides software solutions and offers social shopping platform which encourages interaction among users to determine which pieces look best and to curate the virtual closets of users.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Howard Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC Building 15, Suite 120 3575 Piedmont Rd. Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 513-6651 Fax: (404) 549-4654 Email: Steve@KovalFirm.com I CASTLERY INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Says -------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. I CASTLERY INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04697 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.castlery.com/us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Defendant operates the Castlery online retail store, as well as the Castlery interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Johnston Files Suit in D. Utah -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intermountain Healthcare, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sheri Johnston, Autumn Widdoes, Sara Hurst, Philip Winters, Lezette Rusch, Bryant Thacker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc., The Board of Directors Intermountain Healthcare, Inc., The Intermountain Healthcare Benefits Administration Committee, Case No. 1:25-cv-00073-JNP-DAO (D. Utah, June 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Intermountain Health -- https://intermountainhealthcare.org/ -- offers 24/7 emergency services, prioritizing prompt critical care with a goal to see you within 30 minutes upon arrival.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David K. Isom, Esq. ISOM LAW FIRM 299 S Main St., Ste. 1300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 209-7400 Email: david@isomlawfirm.com J. DOERER: Class Certification Denied in Benoite Prisoner Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kirk E Sherriff of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned as SHELTON BENOITE, Plaintiff, v. J. DOERER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01407-KES-HBK (E.D. Cal.). The magistrate judges' findings and recommendations filed on March 10, 2025 are adopted in full. Plaintiff Shelton Benoite is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On Feb. 12, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On March 10, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied because plaintiff is a nonlawyer proceeding without counsel and it is well established that a layperson without counsel cannot bring a class action. Plaintiff filed a motion titled "Motion to Reconsider - Motion to Appoint Counsel," in which he acknowledges the magistrate judge's finding that this case may not proceed as a class action as plaintiff is unrepresented but requests that the Court reconsider the decision with his request to appoint counsel. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, it concludes that the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8oaY5K from PacerMonitor.com. JBS LIVE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Eadie, writing for swineweb, reports that JBS Live Pork is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it failed to properly compensate hourly employees at its Beardstown, Illinois pork plant for overtime wages. Former employee Darrin Force filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, citing violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The lawsuit claims that JBS did not pay workers for required pre- and post-shift activities, such as putting on and removing protective gear and cleaning up—tasks that could account for up to 30 minutes of unpaid work daily. Force, who worked at the plant from 2018 to 2022, seeks to represent a class of over 500 current and former employees who regularly worked more than 37.5 hours per week during the past three years. The lawsuit demands compensation for unpaid wages, damages, penalties, interest, and legal fees. The case joins a growing number of "donning and doffing" lawsuits across the meatpacking industry, which have seen mixed outcomes in courts nationwide. JBS has not yet issued a formal response to the complaint. Why it matters: With labor rights and transparency in focus across the ag and meat sectors, this case could set precedent in how pre- and post-shift duties are valued and compensated in pork production facilities. Stay tuned to Swine Web for updates as this case develops. [GN] JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Court Awards Attorneys' Fees in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion of lead counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and an award to lead plaintiff in the consolidated case In re JERNIGAN CAPITAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 20-cv-09575-JLR-KHP (S.D.N.Y.). Lead Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees of 33 1/3% of the Settlement Amount, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund. Lead Counsel is also awarded litigation expenses in the amount of $197,475.91, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund, which is payable to Lead Counsel upon entry of this Order. The Court finds that the amount of fees awarded is fair, reasonable, and appropriate under the "percentage-of-recovery" method. In making this award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has analyzed the factors considered within the Second Circuit and found that: (a) the Settlement has created a fund of $12,000,000 in cash, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, and Class Members will benefit from the Settlement created by the efforts of Lead Counsel; (b) the fee sought by Lead Counsel has been reviewed and approved as reasonable by Lead Plaintiff, who oversaw the prosecution and resolution of the Action; (c) over 9,900 copies of the Notice were disseminated to potential Class Members indicating that Lead Counsel would move for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 33 1/3% of the Settlement Amount and for expenses in an amount not to exceed $225,000, plus interest on both amounts, and no objections to the fees or expenses were filed by Class Members; (d) Lead Counsel expended substantial time and effort pursuing the Action on behalf of the Class; (e) Lead Counsel pursued the Action on a contingent basis; (f) the claims against Defendants involve complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence of settlement, would involve lengthy proceedings whose resolution would be uncertain; (g) had Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlement, there would remain a significant risk that the Class may have recovered less or nothing from the Defendants; (h) Lead Counsel conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement with skill, perseverance, and diligent advocacy; (i) public policy concerns favor the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses in securities class action litigation; and (j) the attorneys' fees and expenses awarded are fair and reasonable and consistent with awards in similar cases. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4), the Court awards $10,000 to Lead Plaintiff John R. Erickson for the time he spent representing the Class. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yTmZW9 from PacerMonitor.com. JOE'S CIRCLE CAFE: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Property --------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Maurer, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. JOE'S CIRCLE CAFE, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-06865 (D.N.J., June 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). The Plaintiff continues to encounter architectural barriers at many of the places that he visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The Plaintiff has visited the Property numerous times over the years; his last visit to the Property occurred on or about March 23, 2025. The Plaintiff visited the Property with his family as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public; however, he found it was rife with architectural barriers and violations of the ADA. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired persons. JOE'S CIRCLE CAFE, INC., owns a parcel of land which encompasses a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com JONA-SHAREGO LLC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. JONA-SHAREGO, LLC; SAVORY KEBAB, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-22528-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described Commercial Property, and with respect to the allegations of this Complaint. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. JONA-SHAREGO, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the businesses therein, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Court Stays Karp, et al. Suit Due to Bankruptcy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jennifer H. Rearden of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the case captioned as RONALD H. KARP et al., Plaintiffs, -v.- KIROMIC BIOPHARMA, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-06690-JHR (S.D.N.Y.). The Court is in receipt of the notice of Defendant Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. advising that, on March 21, 2025, a voluntary petition for relief pursuant to Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. Secs. 101, et seq., was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In light of the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362, proceedings in this action are stayed, without prejudice to an application to the Bankruptcy Court for relief from the automatic stay. Prior to Kiromic's bankruptcy filing, the parties jointly moved for approval of a class action settlement in this case. Any party seeking to continue these proceedings should apply to the Bankruptcy Court for an order clarifying the applicability of the automatic stay and/or for relief from the stay. See 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(d). In the absence of such relief, by July 28, 2025 and every ninety (90) days thereafter, the parties must file a joint letter regarding the status of the bankruptcy proceedings in In re: Kiromic Biopharma, Inc., No. 25-10552 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del.). The letter should state whether the bankruptcy case is still pending and whether this matter should remain stayed, be dismissed, or be restored to the active calendar. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=onQdih from PacerMonitor.com. LANDMARK PROPERTIES: Moudgal Files Suit in M.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landmark Properties, Inc. The case is styled as Ashwin Moudgal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Landmark Properties, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00093-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 4, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Landmark Properties -- https://www.landmarkproperties.com/ -- is an integrated real estate firm specializing in the investment, development, construction, and management of high-quality communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. 800 S Gay St., Ste. 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com LESLIE'S POOLMART: Cabral Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yessenia Cabral, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LESLIE'S POOLMART, INC. d/b/a LESLIE'S POOL, an Arizona corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV09270 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05073. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges seven causes of action: Failure to Pay Wages Due and Owing; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Uninterrupted Meal and Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Twice Each Calendar Month; and Violation of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sophia B. Collins, Esq. Nicholas Gioiello, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: scollins@littler.com ngioiello@littler.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Baker Sues Over Failure to Secure Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce H. Baker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03131-SDG (N.D. Ga., June 4, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data breach ("Data Breach") involving the Defendant and for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, contact information (such as phone number, postal or email address) Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and dates of birth (collectively defined herein as "Private Information"). As part of the Data Breach, cybercriminals targeted and exfiltrated data from Defendant's third-party service provider that hosts a portion of the data it collects. Though Defendant has not identified the third-party service provider, the entity has been independently identified as GitHub. Moreover, Defendant should have known that GitHub was a particularly vulnerable company to entrust the Class's Private Information to. Indeed, GitHub suffered another data breach just last year. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current/former customers of Defendant. The Defendant is a global data and analytics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com LGCY POWER: Dounane Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Abdelhamid Dounane, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LGCY POWER, LLC; Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. 25CV116829 was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-04720. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges 11 claims against Defendant, including the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Unlawful Deduction of Wages; Failure to Reimburse All Business Expenses; Failure to Maintain Time and Payroll Records; Failure to Provide Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment and Within The Required Time; and Violation of California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Drew R. Hansen, Esq. Suzanne C. Jones, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.833.7800 Facsimile: 949.833.7878 Email: dhansen@nossaman.com sjones@nossaman.com - and - Madeline G. Hassell, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 34th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213.612.7800 Facsimile: 213.612.7801 Email: mhasell@nossaman.com LOMAS PLAZA: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Property --------------------------------------------------- Dennis Maurer, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. LOMAS PLAZA, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, & R.M.M. CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-06845 (D.N.J., June 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). The Plaintiff continues to encounter architectural barriers at many of the places that he visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The Plaintiff has visited the Property many times over the years; his last visit to the Property occurred on or about April 16, 2025. The Plaintiff visited the Property with his family as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public; however, he found it was rife with architectural barriers and violations of the ADA. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired persons. LOMAS PLAZA, LLC, owns a parcel of land which encompasses a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com LOWA BOOTS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Williams Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWA BOOTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05641 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.lowaboots.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. LOWA Boots LLC operates as a shoe store. The Store offers sportswear shoes that includes mountaineering, hiking, everyday outdoor, cold weather, clearance room, mountain hunting for men, women, and kids. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Bid to Strike Report in Alms Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Julie S. Sneed of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the defendants' motion to strike an expert report in the third amended complaint in the case captioned JOHN ALMS, Plaintiff, v. LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and MIKE MCAULIFFE, Defendants, Case No: 6:23-cv-982-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.). This putative class action alleges violations of securities law. In support of the allegations, Plaintiff attaches an expert report to his third amended complaint, explicitly incorporates the report by reference into the complaint, and refers to and relies on the report within the complaint. The report discusses the expert's background and qualifications, includes the materials that the expert reviewed, presents the expert's analysis and opinion, and generally contains factual assertions and conclusions related to Plaintiff's claims. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), Defendants move to strike the report in its entirety, as well as any portions of the complaint that cite to or rely on the opinions set forth in the report. Plaintiff opposes Defendants' motion. The Court finds Defendants have not satisfied the exceedingly high standard for striking and have not carried their burden as the moving parties to establish that the drastic remedy of striking is warranted in this instance. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cyefh2 from PacerMonitor.com. MARATHON ENTERPRISE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. MARATHON ENTERPRISE OF MIAMI, INC; DON PAN FLAGLER 107, INC; GOOD CHEF RESTAURANT LLC; and SELVA NEGRA CORPORATION,, Case No. 1:25-cv-22531-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. MARATHON ENTERPRISE OF MIAMI, INC, owned and operated a commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com MARIROSA LAMAS: Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Lee Wage Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled ROBERT LEE, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant v. MARIROSA LAMAS; MICHAEL WENEROWICZ; TY STANTON, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, No. 24-2414 (3rd Cir.), Judges Patty Shwartz, Paul B. Matey and Arianna J. Freeman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting summary judgment for the defendants. Lee, a former Corrections Officer Trainee at the State Correctional Institution Chester (SCI-Chester), filed a putative class action seeking relief for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201–219, and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), 43 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Secs. 333.101–.115. He sued three Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) employees in their individual capacities: Marirosa Lamas, SCI-Chester Superintendent, Michael Wenerowicz, Deputy Secretary Eastern Region, and Ty Stanton, Bureau of Human Resources Director. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants, concluding that the FLSA claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment because the Commonwealth was the real party in interest and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lee's PMWA claim. Lee moved for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. He timely appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Circuit Judges hold that, far from being responsible, the undisputed record shows that Defendants were not involved in the purported violation. While they had supervisory roles, none of the Defendants were responsible for developing or enforcing wage and hour policies. Nor were Lamas or Wenerowicz involved in recording or reporting officers' time for payroll purposes. And while Stanton supervised employees who process payroll for DOC, he and those employees were not responsible for ensuring that the timesheets received from SCI-Chester accurately reflected time worked. Simply put, there is no genuine dispute that Defendants were not responsible for the alleged violation. So they'll affirm. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qfGQMQ MDL 2873: Barnett Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF/TOG Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04018-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and high cholesterol. The Barnett case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting products in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in Portland, Oregon. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense company in Virginia. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com MDL 2873: Brown Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------- VIRGIL BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03673-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Brown case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Buskirk Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF/TOG Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD VAN BUSKIRK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04016-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and high cholesterol. The Buskirk case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting products in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in Portland, Oregon. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense company in Virginia. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com MDL 2873: Cobler Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT COBLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03675-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. The Cobler case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Faces Raymond Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS ---------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS RAYMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03680-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Raymond case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Law Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM LAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03664-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease. The Law case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Quillin, Esq. O'LEARY, SHELTON, CORRIGAN, PETERSON, DALTON, & QUILLIN, LLC 1034 S. Brentwood Blvd., 23rd Fl. St. Louis, MO 63117 Telephone: (314) 405-9000 Facsimile: (314) 405-9999 Email: quillin@osclaw.com MDL 2873: Vanderborgh Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY VANDERBORGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03685-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The Vanderborgh case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Watson Sues Over AFFF/TOG Products' Harmful Effects ------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04033-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease. The Watson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting products in California. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Georgia. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Ohio. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Alabama. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Utah. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in Portland, Oregon. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products in Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services based in Utah. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense company in Virginia. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting equipment in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies in Tennessee. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in Iowa. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com MDL 3047: Sullivan Suit Consolidated in Social Media PI Row ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned "Sullivan v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al." (C.A. No. 2:25-00456), from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3047. The MDL involved factual questions arising from "allegations that defendants' social media platforms are defective because they are designed to maximize user screen time, which can encourage addictive behavior in adolescents. Plaintiffs allege defendants were aware, but failed to warn the public, that their platforms were harmful to minors." The MDL actions share questions of fact concerning whether social media platforms encourage addictive behavior, fail to verify users' ages, encourage adolescents to bypass parental controls, and inadequately safeguard against harmful content and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitive content. Sullivan moved to vacate the panel's order conditionally transferring its action to the MDL. Responding defendants Meta Platforms, Inc., Facebook Holdings, LLC, Facebook Operations, LLC, Facebook Payments, Inc., Facebook Technologies, LLC, and Instagram, LLC opposed the motion to vacate. Plaintiff alleges his son was hit by a train and died after he was the victim of a sexual extortion scheme on the Instagram and Snap social media platforms. He alleges Facebook has known for years about the prevalence of "sextortion" on their platforms, but have taken insufficient steps to design their products with safety features or warnings to protect users, including the decedent. He argues that his case involves unique factual questions because the decedent was an adult at the time of his death and the claims do not center on purposeful addiction of minors, age-verifications, parental controls, and the amplification of harmful and exploitative content. He also argues that transfer would be unfair and his case was improperly removed while his motion to remand to state court is pending. As defendants argue, the MDL includes many cases brought by once-adolescent users now bringing suit as adults. The panel has also held that the pendency of a remand motion is insufficient to warrant vacating a conditional transfer order. "Plaintiff's fairness arguments are similarly not well taken," the panel states. The panel repeatedly has held that transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if it might inconvenience some parties to that action. "Rather than arguing why transfer would not promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation, plaintiff offers broad arguments that are directed to the MDL process itself. He provides no specific argument why transfer would prevent the just adjudication of his claims." A full-text copy of the court's June 2, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3047-Transfer_Order-5-25%20%28Sullivan%29.pdf MDL 3108: 4 Suits Consolidated in Change Healthcare Data Breach Row ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers one case each from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Middle District of Florida, Northern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia all to the District of Minnesota, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Change Healthcare, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3108. The MDL actions arise from a February 2024 cyberattack on Change Healthcare's network, which exposed the private information of millions of individuals and severely disrupted the ability of physicians, pharmacies, and other healthcare providers to use Change Healthcare's digital platform to access insurance information, fill prescriptions, submit insurance claims, and receive payment for services provided to patients. Plaintiffs in each of these actions allege that they were injured because of the Change Healthcare data breach. Plaintiffs in the Morris action are individuals who allege that their private information was compromised in the February 2024 Change Healthcare data breach. Their claims mirror those of numerous plaintiffs in the MDL, where a track has been established for such claims by individuals, and a consolidated class complaint has been filed on their behalf. Plaintiffs' factual allegations are substantially identical to those of other individual plaintiffs in the MDL, and the individual plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint filed at the direction of the transferee court asserts claims for violation of nine state data breach notification statutes similar to plaintiffs’ claim under the Florida statute, opines the panel. The Eastern District of Virginia Peninsula Radiological Associates action is a healthcare provider action like dozens of other actions in the MDL. Plaintiff alleges that the data breach and the ensuing shutdown of defendants' systems left plaintiff unable to collect payments from insurance companies and patients. The panel holds that the Plaintiff's arguments fail to acknowledge the substantial factual overlap between its action and the MDL cases. While it alleges that substantial sums were already past due before the data breach, it devotes a significant portion of its complaint to allegations regarding the causes and effects of the cyberattack, and to the TFAP program implemented after the attack. These allegations overlap with those in numerous other actions that have been transferred to the MDL and in the healthcare provider consolidated class complaint filed at the transferee court's direction, notes the panel. Turning lastly to the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona (BCBSAZ) and Capital District Physicians actions, these actions are unlike others in the MDL in that they are brought by health insurance companies that contracted with the Change Healthcare defendants for the provision of services largely specific to insurers. Like the healthcare provider plaintiffs in the MDL, however, these insurer plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the Change Healthcare data breach and the ensuing lockdown of defendants’ digital platform, their operations were disrupted and they incurred substantial losses. The actions will involve questions of fact that overlap extensively with the MDL, including how the cyberattack occurred, whether defendants failed to take adequate steps to prevent the attack, the impact of the attack on plaintiffs’ operations, and the steps taken by defendants after the attack to restore access to data stored on its digital platform, states the panel. In addition, plaintiffs assert a theory of liability -- breach of their contracts with the Change defendants -- that is asserted by many MDL plaintiffs. Transfer will allow for coordinated discovery on these common issues, the panel concludes. A full-text copy of the court's June 2, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3108-Transfer_Order-5-25.pdf MDL 3114: 15 Suits Consolidated in AT&T Data Security Breach Row ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers 15 cases from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Ada E. Brown for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: AT&T Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3114. The Plaintiffs in the 15 actions moved to vacate the conditional transfer order transferring their actions to MDL No. 3114. Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC opposes the motion and supports transfer but requests simultaneous separation and remand of the non-data breach claims asserted in twelve actions to the Southern District of Florida transferor court. The actions in the MDL present common factual questions concerning an alleged data security breach announced by AT&T in March 2024 concerning the personal information of over 70 million former and current AT&T customers released on the dark web. In opposition to transfer, plaintiffs principally argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and that transfer is improper while their motions for remand to state court are pending. However, the panel has held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer, explaining that remand motions can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. Plaintiffs also sought an order from the panel remanding their actions to state court. The panel pointed out that it does not have the authority to order remand of actions to state court. The panel further determined that the actions should be transferred in their entirety, without separation and remand of the non-data breach claims to the transferor court. "After considering the argument of counsel, we find that the actions involve common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 3114, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation," concludes the panel. A full-text copy of the panel's May 30, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3114-Transfer_Order-5-25.pdf MDL 3143: Susman Godfrey Named as Interim Lead Class Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Sidney H. Stein, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 30, 2025, appointed Justin A. Nelson of Susman Godfrey LLP, as interim lead class counsel to act on behalf of the putative class in "In re: OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation," MDL No. 3143. The Interim Lead counsel will have the responsibilities and authority of Leadership Counsel as set forth in the Manual for Complex Litigation Fourth, Sections 10.221 and 40.22, and as provided in the court's May 22, 2025, Case Management Order. Judge Stein's order will apply to each related class action currently pending or subsequently filed in or transferred to he U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for inclusion in this MDL. The actions in the MDL arose from allegations that OpenAI and Microsoft used copyrighted works, without consent or compensation, to train their large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, which underlie defendants' generative artificial intelligence products, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft's Bing Chat (rebranded as Copilot), which can algorithmically simulate human reasoning and inference. A copy of Judge Stein's ruling is available at https://bit.ly/4jyg0oy MICHIGAN: Court Refuses to Stay Judgment in Does v. Gov. Whitmer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denies the Defendants' motion to stay judgment in the lawsuit entitled JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI (E.D. Mich.). The Plaintiffs filed this class action challenging the constitutionality of Michigan's Sex Offender Registration Act, Mich. Comp. Laws. Section 28.721, et seq., as it was amended in 2021 (SORA 2021). The Plaintiffs brought eleven claims, alleging that SORA 2021 violates numerous constitutional protections. In September 2024, the Court issued a ruling granting summary judgment to both parties as to certain claims (Does v. Whitmer (Does III), 751 F. Supp. 3d 761 (E.D. Mich. 2024)). As is relevant here, the Court held that retroactively increasing reporting requirements and extending registration terms violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. The Court also held that SORA 2021 violates procedural due process and equal protection in its treatment of persons convicted of sex offenses outside of Michigan. Following the Court's ruling, the parties reported on their efforts to reach consensus on the appropriate remedy and explained their positions where they disagreed. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of judgment, which the Court granted in part and denied in part, Does III, No. 22-cv-10209, 2025 WL 914129 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2025). The Court entered a judgment on March 26, 2025, which was later amended to correct technical errors on April 22, 2025. The Defendants filed a motion to stay the Judgment with respect to the Plaintiffs' ex post facto and non-Michigan offense challenges during the pendency of the appeal. For reasons set forth in this Opinion & Order, the Court denies the motion. Judge Goldsmith notes that courts consider four factors to determine if a stay pending appeal is warranted: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies," citing Memphis A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Hargett, 977 F.3d 566, 568 (6th Cir. 2020). The Court considers each factor and finds that all factors disfavor a stay. Judge Goldsmith finds that the Defendants have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits, they have not shown that they would be irreparably injured absent a stay, and that they have not shown that any other party will be injured absent a stay. Judge Goldsmith opines that the Plaintiffs correctly argue that continuing to enforce an unconstitutional law creates substantial harm. Judge Goldsmith points out that all four factors weigh decidedly against a stay. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to stay. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2nferkeu from PacerMonitor.com. MILLER SQUARE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ---------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. MILLER SQUARE, LLC; ANTOJITOS MEXICANOS TENORIO LLC; MI TIERRA DOMINICAN CUISINE LLC; and FRITANGA MONIMBO MILLER SQUARE INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-22534-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. MILLER SQUARE, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com MODERNA INC: Pak Sa Kim Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Indira Talwani of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted as unopposed as to Pak Sa Kim's appointment as lead plaintiff, and denied without prejudice as to his selection of lead counsel in the class action lawsuit captioned as MASON WENTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MODERNA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12058-IT (D. Mass.). Plaintiff Mason Wentz brought this securities class action suit against Defendants Moderna, Inc., and its executives Stephane Bancel, James Mock, and Stephen Hoge (collectively "Moderna"), alleging that they violated the Securities Exchange Act by making materially false and/or misleading statements and by failing to disclose adverse facts. Pending before the court are motions by Stephen Feldman, Joseph Pellegrene, and Pak Sa Kim for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). Feldman and Pellegrene later filed notices of non-opposition to Kim's appointment as lead plaintiff. As to financial interest, Feldman alleges that he suffered a loss of $8,295 relating to the allegations in the Complaint. Pellegrene alleges a loss of $59,074. Kim alleges a loss of $95,551. Based on Kim's unopposed motion, the Court finds that Kim's alleged loss of $95,551 represents the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class. The Court finds that Kim is entitled to the rebuttable presumption that he is the most adequate plaintiff to represent the putative class. As no party has rebutted that presumption, his motion to serve as lead plaintiff is granted. Feldman and Pellegrene' motions are denied as moot. In this case, Kim asks the Court to appoint Bernstein Liebhard LLP as Lead Counsel. However, Kim's request that the Court appoint law firms, rather than individual attorneys, raises the question of whether a law firm may serve as counsel where it may not enter appearances or file pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and where Local Rule 83.5.2(b) requires that when a party is represented by a law firm, the appearance must include the name of at least one individual attorney. Kim may renew his motion by identifying the individual attorneys Kim seeks to have appointed. In the alternative, Kim may renew his motion for the appointment of a law firm, but must provide authority for the proposition that the PSLRA, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or applicable ethical rules contemplate and provide for the appointment of law firms, as opposed to individual attorneys, as lead counsel. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QazRiJ from PacerMonitor.com. MOHAMAD I. DAHAB: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. MOHAMAD I. DAHAB and ORIENTAL BAKERY AND GROCERY ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-22519-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. MOHAMAD I. DAHAB, owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property, with all areas open to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com MOSAIC TERRAZZO: RB Sues Over Labor Union's Unfair Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ RB RESTORATION, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOSAIC TERRAZZO AND CHEMICAL PRODUCT DECORATIVE FINISHER MASON WORKERS ASSOC. LOCAL 7 OF NEW YORK VICINITY INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFT WORKERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04246 (D.N.J., May 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for lack of establishment of a compliant pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act, civil conspiracy, unfair competition, equitable remedies and relief under Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and breach of collective bargaining agreement. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged engagement in deceptive labor practices, violations of a collective bargaining agreement and federal and state statutes in the United States, and wrongful use of justice system to intimidate groups of employers, including the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendants' unfair labor practices, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages and therefore seek equitable relief and other appropriate remedies. RB Restoration, Inc. is a contractor based in New Jersey. Mosaic terrazzo and Chemical Product Decorative Finisher Mason Workers Assoc. Local 7 of New York Vicinity International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers is a labor union in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Abrahamsen, Esq. ABRAHAMSENGRANT, LLC 3 University Plaza, Suite 207 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 840-5660 Facsimile: (201) 840-5663 MYFITNESSPAL INC: Discloses Web Visitors' Private Info, Shah Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAL SHAH and CHRISTINE WILEY, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MYFITNESSPAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-04430 (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy; intrusion upon seclusion; wiretapping in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; use of a pen register in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; and trespass to chattels. According to the complaint, when consumers visit Defendant's website, www.myfitnesspal.com, the Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner. The Defendant's cookie banner discloses that the Website uses cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendant assures visitors that they can choose to opt out of the use of certain cookies where the word "here" is a hyperlink that users can click or select. However, unlike other websites, Defendant's Website offers consumers a choice to browse without being tracked, followed, and targeted by third party data brokers and advertisers. But, Defendant's promises are outright lies, designed to lull users into a false sense of security. Even after users elect to opt out of cookies by following the "here" link, then adjusting all available settings to opt out of, decline, or reject all categories of cookies, including Functional and Advertising cookies, the Defendant surreptitiously causes several third parties -- including Meta Platforms, Inc., Google LLC, ByteDance Ltd., Amazon.com, Inc., and The Trade Desk, Inc., (the "Third Parties") -- to place and/or transmit cookies that track users' website browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private communications on the Website, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class members have been damaged by Defendant's invasion of their privacy and are entitled to just compensation, including monetary damages. MyFitnessPal, Inc. is a health and fitness tracking smartphone app and website.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Johnson Says ------------------------------------------------------------ THERESA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEIGHBORS CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00741 (E.D. Mo., May 21, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other current and former customers of Defendant, the putative class members. According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on the Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. Defendant, through its employees, disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, among other things, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions. Defendant also failed to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and failed to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach. Neighbors Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative. The Union provides financial solutions such as loans, investment, savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: 615/254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Leigh Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com NEW YORK CITY: Court Directs Satchell to Oppose Bid to Dismiss -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JOHN SATCHELL, Plaintiff v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11119-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York directs the Plaintiff to file an opposition to the City of New York's motion to dismiss. The Court received the Plaintiff's letter postmarked May 12, 2025. The Plaintiff's letter appears to constitute a new complaint raising class action claims. The letter also realleges the allegations raised in the Plaintiff's numerous previous letters. The Court refers the Plaintiff to its order dated April 28, 2025, in which the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class. In its April 28, 2025 order, the Court also told the Plaintiff that if he wishes to amend his complaint with new or additional allegations, he must request permission to file an amended complaint. The Plaintiff has not moved for, and the Court has not granted him leave to, amend his complaint. Further, the Plaintiff's most recent letter complaint simply re-raises the same allegations contained in his previous letters. For these reasons, the Court does not accept this filing as an amended complaint. Judge Woods directs the Plaintiff, if he so chooses, to file a letter opposing the City of New York's motion to dismiss, filed on April 28, 2025. As ordered in the Court's April 21, 2025 order, the Plaintiff has until four weeks from the date of service of the City's motion to file his opposition. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order, the order at Dkt. No. 37, and the documents at Dkt. Nos. 38 and 39 to the Plaintiff by certified mail. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3trya8tm from PacerMonitor.com. NEW YORK, NY: Court to Appoint Nunez Remediation Manager -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as MARK NUNEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, -v- NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-5845-LTS-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York will appoint an will appoint an independent Nunez Remediation Manager who shall report directly to the Court and be empowered to take all actions necessary to cure Defendants' contempt and support remediation of the ongoing violations of the constitutional rights of people in custody in the New York City jails. In its Opinion and Order on the Motion for Contempt, dated Nov. 27, 2024, the Court held Defendants in civil contempt of eighteen provisions of four Court orders entered in this case: the Consent Judgment, the First Remedial Order, the Second Remedial Order, and the Action Plan. In the Contempt Order, the Court indicated that it was inclined to impose a receivership and directed the parties to develop a set of remedial proposals to that end. Before the Court are two competing proposals -- one from the plaintiff class of New York City jail inmates and detainees and the Plaintiff-Intervenor, the United States, represented by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; and another from Defendants, the New York City Department of Correction and the City of New York -- for enhanced remedial relief in the case. This case arose in 2012 with individual claims of injuries from excessive force, amidst allegations that the Department engaged in a pattern and practice of using unnecessary and excessive force against incarcerated individuals, and was later certified as a class action. The instant case is the sixth class action lawsuit challenging a pattern and practice of excessive and unnecessary force in New York City's jails. On behalf of a class of present and future incarcerated individuals confined in jails operated by the Department, Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, in addition to monetary damages related to specific incidents in which the named Plaintiffs alleged they were victims of excessive force. In October 2015, the parties entered into a settlement (the "Consent Judgment"), the purpose of which was to protect the federal constitutional rights of incarcerated individuals. The Consent Judgment, comprising twenty-five sections and hundreds of provisions, requires the Defendants to take specific actions to remedy a pattern and practice of violence by staff against incarcerated individuals, and to develop and implement new policies and procedures to ensure the safety and wellbeing of incarcerated individuals. The Consent Judgment includes a stipulation that its purpose is to protect the constitutional rights of the inmates confined in jails operated by the Department and that its terms and requirements will be interpreted to be consistent with the measures necessary to protect the constitutional rights of inmates. The parties also stipulated to the appointment of a Monitor, as an agent of the Court, to oversee and assess the Department's compliance with the Consent Judgment. The Court found that the use of force rate and other rates of violence, selfharm, and deaths in custody are demonstrably worse than when the Consent Judgment went into effect in 2015 and the unsafe and dangerous conditions in the jails have become normalized despite the fact that they are clearly abnormal and unacceptable. The Court found that for nine years, Defendants made only half-hearted, inconsistent efforts to comply with Court orders. The Court found that the record in this case makes clear that those who live and work in the jails on Rikers Island are faced with grave and immediate threats of danger, as well as actual harm, on a daily basis as a direct result of Defendants' lack of diligence, and that the remedial efforts thus far undertaken by the Court, the Monitoring Team, and the parties have not been effective to alleviate this danger. The Court found that Defendants' ongoing failure to comply requires a remedy that addresses the insufficiently resourced leadership; a lack of continuity in management; failures of supervision and cooperation between supervisors and line officers; a lack of skill or imagination to create and implement transformative plans; and an unwillingness or inability to cooperate with the Monitoring Team recommendations to accomplish the changes necessary. The Court found that the last nine years also leave no doubt that continued insistence on compliance with the Court's orders by persons answerable principally to political authorities would lead only to confrontation and delay; that the current management structure and staffing are insufficient to turn the tide within a reasonable period; that Defendants have consistently fallen short of the requisite compliance with Court orders for years, at times under circumstances that suggest bad faith; and that enormous resources -- that the City devotes to a system that is at the same time overstaffed and underserved -- are not being deployed effectively. As required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3626(a), the prospective relief in this Order is narrowly drawn, extends no further than is necessary to correct the violations of federal rights as alleged by the Plaintiff Class and the United States, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system. Therefore, the Court ordered the appointment of Nunez Remediation Manager. The Court expects that the Remediation Manager and the Commissioner of the Department of Correction will work as collaboratively as possible to achieve remediation of the Contempt Provisions and compliance with the Consent Judgment, including by building upon the progress that has been achieved since the current Commissioner took office. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mOMutk from PacerMonitor.com. Attorneys for the Plaintiff Class: Mary Lynne Werlwas, Esq. Kayla Simpson, Esq. Katherine Haas, Esq. Sophia Gebresellassie, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 49 Thomas Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 - and - Jonathan Abady, Esq. Debra Greenberger, Esq. Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq. Vasudha Talla, Esq. Sana Mayat, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 E-mail: jabady@ecbalaw.com dgreenberger@ecbawm.com NEW YORK, NY: Discovery Requests in Briskin Suit Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery in the case captioned as COREY BRISKIN and NICHOLAS MAGGIPINTO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -v- CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-03557-JAV (S.D.N.Y.). Before the Court is a letter motion to compel responses to certain interrogatories and document requests served by Plaintiffs Corey Briskin and Nicholas Maggipinto upon the City of New York, Eric L. Adams, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, Renee Campion, individually and in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Office of Labor Relations of the City of New York, Bill de Blasio, former Mayor of the City of New York, and Robert Linn, former OLR Commissioner. Plaintiffs, a gay couple who sought to conceive children, allege that the City's healthcare plans categorically excluded gay male partners from receiving invitro fertilization benefits, while providing IVF benefits to female employees and their partners, and male employees and their partners. Plaintiffs brought this action under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e et seq., the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and the New York Constitution. Plaintiffs filed this as a putative class action under Rule 23, on behalf of a proposed class consisting of: All gay men who, on or after April 12, 2019, through the date of judgment in this action: (1) were employed by the City of New York; (2) were interested in using in vitro fertilization ("IVF") or in obtaining reimbursement for themselves or their spouses for IVF from a healthcare plan of the City of New York, or sought such benefits or reimbursement for IVF; and (3) were denied access to IVF under such a healthcare plan for themselves or their spouses or were not eligible to access IVF under such a healthcare plan for themselves or their spouses, because they are (or at the relevant time were) gay men in a same-sex relationship or single gay men. Plaintiffs also propose a similar class for spouses of City employees and former employees Plaintiffs' motion raises three discovery disputes. They allege that Defendants refuse to provide information about City health plans other than the EmblemHealth Comprehensive Benefits Plan, underwritten by GHI, which covers 75% of City employees and was the plan in which the named Plaintiffs were enrolled. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are attempting to unilaterally rewrite the class definition to limit the class to City employees who received benefits from a single insurance plan, the GHI Plan. As such, Plaintiffs seek documents that would allow them to identify all men with male spouses employed by the City who were eligible to participate in any City health insurance plan during the requisite time frame and documents sufficient to identify all requests for coverage for IVF services by persons on any City health insurance plan, the marital status and sexual orientation of the requester, and whether the request was approved or denied. Defendants argue that the information Plaintiffs are seeking is irrelevant. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not adequately responded to four of their Interrogatories and have declined to offer a "more practical method" of doing Those Interrogatories request information regarding: (1) When the City first became aware that gay men were being denied access to IVF benefits; (2) Any actions the City took in response to this problem once it became aware of it; (3) Any investigation that the City performed to respond to Plaintiffs' inquiry as to whether they would be eligible for IVF Benefits; and (4) Any actions that the City took to change or modify its practices with respect to gay employees' access to IVF services. Defendants have objected to each of these as impermissible under S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 33.3(a). They assert that a more appropriate and efficient alternative to interrogatories would be for Plaintiffs to obtain information regarding the actions taken by the City and its employees in response to claims of discrimination against same-sex couples through a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a City-designated witness. The Court finds Plaintiffs are entitled to obtain discovery to determine whether employees who participated in plans other than the CBP were denied coverage for IVF treatments. The Court agrees with Defendants' assessment of the interrogatories and their suggested approach. As such, the Court finds that depositions are a far more practical and efficient method of obtaining the information it seeks from the four contested interrogatories. Defendants must provide to Plaintiffs documents sufficient to identify all men employed by the City during the requisite time frame with male spouses or partners who were eligible to participate in any City health insurance plan, to the extent this information has not previously been produced, by June 27, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UMItXz from PacerMonitor.com. NEW YORK, NY: Loses Bid to Keep Judicial Administrations Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs' request to unseal certain documents in the case captioned as M.G., et al., Plaintiffs, - against - NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-04639-SHS-RWL (S.D.N.Y.). This order resolves the parties' dispute about whether the City Defendants' Judicial Admissions, and the portions of other documents referencing those Admissions, should be maintained under seal. The City Defendants do not oppose unsealing of the Sealed Information. Rather, they oppose the timing of the unsealing. Specifically, the City Defendants contend the Sealed Information should not be unsealed until the Court rules on Plaintiffs' motion for adverse inferences because doing so will be inefficient and potentially cause confusion about the significance or consequences of the Admissions. The City Defendants also note Plaintiffs' expressed intent to potentially use the Admissions in other proceedings involving some of the same principal issues at stake in the instant class action. The Court believes that the concerns about "inefficiency" and "confusion" are unduly speculative and overstated, and do not overcome the presumption of public access. While the City Defendants correctly note that the presumption of public access weighs less in discovery matters than in dispositive matters such as summary judgment, the nature of this particular dispute raises issues that go to the merits and more heavily weighs in favor of maintaining the presumption, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=desYba from PacerMonitor.com. NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Pierre Suit Gets Preliminary Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval of the class and collective action settlement in the case captioned as BURBRAN PIERRE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, TD BANK N.A., DUANE READE INC., B & H PHOTO VIDEO PRO AUDIO LLC, BLOOMBERG L.P., TRIHOP 14TH STREET LLC, DOES NOS. 1-10, SILVERSEAL CORPORATION d/b/a S.E.A.L. SECURITY LLC, and GARDAWORLD SECURITY CORPORATION d/b/a GARDWORLD, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05116-ALC-VF (S.D.N.Y.). On Sept. 16, 2024, Plaintiff Burbran Pierre, with the consent of Defendants Duane Reade Inc., the New York City Police Department, and the City of New York, filed his motion for preliminary approval of a settlement between the Parties. In doing so, the Parties requested certification of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action and final certification of the FLSA collective action, for settlement purposes only, and sought approval of a settlement on behalf of these putative class members. The Court has considered the Parties' request for approval of a Rule 23 class pursuant to Rule 23(e) and collective certification for settlement purposes only, and finds and orders as follows: The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, filed with the Court, falls within the range of reasonableness and, therefore, meets the requirements for preliminary approval such that notice to the Class is appropriate. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is the result of extensive, armslength negotiations by counsel well versed in the prosecution of wage and hour class actions. The Court grants the Parties' motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, Certification of the Settlement Class, Appointment of Class Counsel, and Approval of Plaintiff's Notices of Settlement and Claim Forms. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Rule 23(e), the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class consisting of all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, and Lieutenants who provided services at any Duane Reade location in New York State, through the Paid Detail Program, at any time from July 3, 2014 through the date of this Order. For settlement purposes only, the Court also grants final certification of the FLSA collective action consisting of all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, and Lieutenants who provided services at any Duane Reade location in New York State, through the Paid Detail Program, at any time from July 3, 2017 through the date of this Order. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Plaintiff Burbran Pierre to represent the Class and finds that Plaintiff meets all the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e)2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on October 28, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., at 1-855-244-8681 (access code: 2305 370 0226#), for the purposes of: (a) hearing any timely and properly filed objections; (b) making a final determination as to the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the Settlement Agreement terms and procedures; (c) fixing the amount of attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses to Class Counsel and the Service Awards to Service Award Recipients; and (d) entering Judgment if appropriate. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=STaeCE from PacerMonitor.com. NEXTDOOR HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Hollingsworth Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned KEITH HOLLINGSWORTH, Plaintiff v. NEXTDOOR HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01213-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend. Lead Plaintiff Keith Hollingsworth brings this securities fraud class action under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Before the Court are two motions to dismiss ("MTDs") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The first is brought by Defendants Nextdoor Holdings, Inc., Sarah J. Friar, and Michael Doyle ("Nextdoor Defendants"). The second is brought by Defendants Vinod Khosla, Samir Kaul, Peter Buckland, Khosla Ventures LLC, and Khosla Ventures SPAC Sponsor II LLC ("Khosla Defendants"). The Plaintiff filed an omnibus opposition, and the Defendants filed separate replies. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions about Nextdoor Private's projected profitability prior to and after its acquisition by Khosla Ventures Acquisition Co. II ("KV Acquisition"). KV Acquisition is a special purpose acquisition company that raises money from investors in an initial public offering and uses the proceeds to acquire business or operational assets, typically from a private company. On July 6, 2021, KV Acquisition announced they had entered into a merger agreement with Nextdoor Private. Nextdoor Private first launched in the United States in 2011 as a "neighborhood network" that operated a hyperlocal online social networking platform. The platform connected neighbors, public agencies, and businesses with features such as a news feed where neighbors engage with posts, discussions, and pictures. Beginning in 2020, demand for Nextdoor Private's community-based platform rose dramatically as shelter-in-place mandates and other social distancing restrictions led people to increasingly seek social connection and information from their communities on Nextdoor Private's platform. As a result, Nextdoor Private grew rapidly in 2020 with weekly active users (also referred to as "WAUs") growing nearly 37% from 19.5 million in 2019 to nearly 27 million in 2020. Average revenue per user ("ARPU") during the same period also grew by 10% from $4.23 to $4.62. Following KV Acquisition shareholders' approval at a special meeting, the merger was completed on Nov. 5, 2021. The new company is called Nextdoor Holdings, Inc. ("Nextdoor"). Following the merger, virtually all of Nextdoor's revenues are generated through advertising sales. Pursuant to the agreement, KV Acquisition shareholders had the right to receive shares of Nextdoor in exchange for their shares of KV Acquisition. Shortly after the merger, through a series of disclosures on March 1, May 10, Aug. 9 and Nov. 8, 2022, Nextdoor revealed declining ARPU growth rates and declining weekly active users. By the end of the Class Period, Nextdoor lost 90% of its value. The Plaintiff purchased KV Acquisition Class A common stock three days prior to the merger on Nov. 2, 2021. After the merger, the Plaintiff continued to purchase Nextdoor Class A common stocks until May 11, 2022. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of all purchasers of the publicly traded Class A common stock of Nextdoor between July 6, 2021, and Nov. 8, 2022 ("Class Period"). The Plaintiff alleges that Nextdoor's significant loss during the Class Period occurred because the Defendants misled investors about two aspects of Nextdoor's business. First, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants misled investors about Nextdoor's definition of "active users." The Defendants repeatedly made statements regarding the sustained growth of Nextdoor's weekly and daily "active users," but it defined "active users" as users who visited Nextdoor's website or app or opened a content email. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to inform investors that half of the "active users" were those who simply opened an email, not those who created advertising revenue by engaging with the website or app. Second, in promoting the merger to investors, the Defendants portrayed Nextdoor as the next big hit startup company like Twitter or Snap by directly comparing Nextdoor to those companies and suggesting that there were similarly no structural barriers to its skyrocketing. The Plaintiff alleges that these comparisons were materially misleading because Nextdoor could not reasonably expect to obtain ARPU comparable to Twitter's and Snap's given that Nextdoor only attracts users for one-off, discrete tasks, and half of Nextdoor's "active users" merely open Nextdoor emails rather than engaging with Nextdoor's platform and making advertising impressions. The Plaintiff also alleges, among other things, that the Defendants misled investors about certain aspects of Nextdoor's business by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions during the Class Period. In his opposition to the MTDs, the Plaintiff abandons his Section 14(a) claim, his scheme liability claim, and various statements previously challenged under Section 10(b), choosing to only defend claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) as pleaded in the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") based on the misstatements and omission addressed in the opposition. Accordingly, the Court dismisses these claims. The Court also dismisses the remaining claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The Nextdoor Defendants and the Khosla Defendants both filed requests that the Court take judicial notice of the exhibits submitted with their MTDs, which include public filings with the SEC, transcripts from earnings calls and conferences, analyst reports, and a historical stock price chart. The Plaintiff did not oppose these requests. The Court grants the Defendants' requests to take judicial notice of these documents as either relied upon in the FAC or as documents that are not subject to reasonable dispute and can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. In their MTDs, the Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiff's claims under Section 10(b) in part because he lacks standing to bring claims arising from certain statements, and he fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to sue for any statements about Nextdoor Private made prior to the merger in July, September, and October of 2021. The Court also finds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to sue for any statements made after his last purchase on May 11, 2022. Hence, the Court grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss claims arising out of statements or omissions from July, September, October 2021, or August 2022 for lack of standing. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court dismisses with leave to amend. The only statement remaining is the one made on May 10, 2022. The Defendants next raise several arguments regarding the the Plaintiff's failure to allege facts sufficient to meet all elements of a Section 10(b) claim, but the Court need only address the first element--a material misstatement or omission by the Defendants. The Court finds that the Plaintiff fails to plead facts to show that this is a material misstatement or omission. Though this practice of defining people who merely open their email as "active users" may have been highly unusual in the industry, Judge Davila points out that the Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support his allegation that it would have been unexpected by investors because Nextdoor explicitly defines an "active user" as a person who "opens our application, logs on to our website, or engages with an email with monetizable content at least once during a defined . . . period." Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to show a material misstatement or omission and grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss claims arising from the May 10, 2022, statement with leave to amend. Judge Davila opines that the Plaintiff has failed to plead a predicate violation of the securities laws, thus, his claim under Section 20(a) necessarily fails. The Court, therefore, grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss this claim, as well with leave to amend. Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend. Should the Plaintiff wish to file an amended complaint, his deadline was June 9, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3cw6y34r from PacerMonitor.com. OLD POINT: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With TowneBank ---------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Old Point Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: OPOF), relating to the proposed merger with TowneBank. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of Old Point will elect to receive $41.00 in cash or 1.1400 shares of TowneBank common stock for each share of Old Point outstanding common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 2, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/old-point-financial-corporation-opof/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- ProAssurance Corporation (NYSE: PRA), relating to the proposed merger with The Doctors Company. Under the terms of the agreement, ProAssurance stockholders will receive $25.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/proassurance-corporation-pra/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 24, 2025. -- SpringWorks Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SWTX), relating to the proposed merger with Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Under the terms of the agreement, SpringWorks shareholders will have the right to receive $47.00 in cash per share of SpringWorks stock held. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/springworks-therapeutics-inc-swtx/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 26, 2025. -- TuHURA Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: HURA), relating to the proposed merger with Kineta, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, TuHURA would acquire the rights to Kineta's novel KVA12123 antibody for a combination of cash and shares of TuHURA common stock. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/tuhura-biosciences-inc-hura/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 23, 2025. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] ORGANON & CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- Berger Montague PC advises investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Organon & Co. ("Organon" or the "Company") (NYSE: OGN) on behalf of purchasers of Organon securities between October 31, 2024 through April 30, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline: Investors who purchased or acquired Organon securities during the Class Period may, no later than JULY 22, 2025, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. To learn your rights, CLICK HERE. Organon, headquartered in Jersey City, NJ, is a healthcare company focused on women's health. In October 2024, Organon acquired Dermavant, a biopharmaceutical company focused on dermatological conditions, for $1.2 billion. According to the lawsuit, despite the increase in debt from the Dermavant acquisition, the Company assured investors that it would maintain its dividend, which it described as its "#1 capital allocation priority." The suit alleges that, notwithstanding such representations, Organon had shifted its capital allocation priority after the Dermavant acquisition to focus on reducing its debt. On May 1, 2025, investors learned the truth when Organon announced that management reset the Company's dividend payout from $0.28 per share to $0.02 per share. Organon's senior management explained that the Company had "reset our capital allocation priorities to accelerate progress towards deleveraging" and that "returning capital to shareholders is right now, less of a priority." On this news, the price of Organon stock declined $3.48 per share -- approximately 27% -- from a closing price of $12.93 per share on April 30, 2025 to a close of $9.45 per share on May 1, 2025. To learn your rights or for more information, CLICK HERE or please contact Berger Montague: Andrew Abramowitz at aabramowitz@bm.net or (215) 875-3015, or Peter Hamner at phamner@bm.net. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Communicating with any counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery achieved in this case. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive class member. Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Delaware, Washington, D.C., San Diego, San Francisco and Chicago, has been a pioneer in securities class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague has represented individual and institutional investors for over five decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the United States. Contact: Andrew Abramowitz, Esq. Peter Hamner, Esq. Berger Montague (215) 875-3015 aabramowitz@bm.net phamner@bm.net [GN] ORGANON & CO: Faces Hauser Suit Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH HAUSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORGANON & CO., KEVIN ALI; and MATTHEW WALSH, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05322 (D.N.J., May 23, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Organon securities between October 31, 2024, to April 30, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Organon's prioritization of its capital allocation strategy through regular, quarterly dividends. Defendants' statements included, among other things, reassurance that capital allocation through the aforementioned dividends was a "#1 capital allocation priority" and that Organon was committed to consistent deployment of capital. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of the Company's priorities, particularly, related to capital allocation through quarterly dividends. Notably, Defendants concealed the high priority of Organon's debt reduction strategy following the Company's acquisition of Dermavant, resulting in a 70% decrease for the regular quarterly dividend. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Organon's securities at artificially inflated prices, alleges the suit. Organon & Co. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company develops and produces medicines and other products across a range of areas including reproductive health, heart disease, dermatology, allergies, and asthma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com PACTIV LLC: Reyes Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pactiv, LLC, Case: 1:25-cv-06233 (N.D. Ill., June 4, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned overtime wages. Under the FLSA and IMWL, employers must pay all non-exempt employees an overtime wage premium of pay one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time they spend working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time they spent working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. Plaintiff therefore brings Class Action and Collective action Complaint, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Pactiv as a forklift operator from October 10, 2024 through the present. Pactiv is a manufacturer and distributor of food packaging and foodservice products, supplying packers, processors, supermarkets, restaurants, institutions and foodservice outlets across North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: 847-986-5889 Facsimile: 847-673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022 Phone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com PANT SAGGIN: Villaverde Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Amanda Villaverde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PANT SAGGIN LLC, Case No. CACE-25-004450 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-61117-XXXX. On April 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexis M. Buese, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 1001 Water Street, Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 559-5500 Email: abuese@bradley.com - and - Stephen C. Parsley, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 1819 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 521-80000 Email: sparsley@bradley.com PATELCO CREDIT: Settles Cyberattack Class Action Suit for $7.25MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yuri Nagano, writing for San Francisco Public Press, reports that nearly a year after a ransomware attack paralyzed Patelco Credit Union, a class action against the nonprofit financial cooperative has been settled for $7.25 million. More than 1 million accounts were affected by the breach. Dublin-based Patelco has reached a settlement with 12 named plaintiffs in Alameda County Superior Court, said Scott Edward Cole, an Oakland consumer lawyer for Cole & Van Note representing the account holders. Cole said the plaintiffs are waiting for the court to formally approve the settlement so the documents can be sent to other members of the class after a hearing scheduled for June 10. Settlement terms include creating a $7.25 million fund to be shared by victims affected by the ransomware attack and system shutdown of Patelco that lasted for more than two weeks last summer. Patelco has acknowledged that hackers gained access to account holders' names, dates of birth, home addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and email addresses. The credit union has offered complimentary credit-monitoring subscription services to all data breach victims. Plaintiffs in this case "have various ways of demonstrating that the damages they suffered were traceable to the Patelco data breach," Cole said. Plaintiffs sued Patelco for negligence and violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, and "negotiations were adversarial" in nature, according to the settlement. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Public Press found leaked data from the cyberattack posted on the dark web -- part of the internet that can be accessed anonymously and is not indexed by search engines -- and reached out to some of the people who had their personal information exposed. One person asked not to be contacted again. Another declined to comment and a third person said she was "scared" and was being "cautious." The Public Press reporter for this story was also affected by the data breach. RansomHub, the attacker of Patelco, was one of the top ransomware hackers last year, according to the FBI's 2024 Internet Crime Report. Last year, the U.S. saw $16.6 billion in reported losses from internet crime, a 33% increase from the previous year. Data breaches were among the most frequent complaints to the agency. As they become increasingly commonplace, data breaches remain a serious problem for consumers. If someone with bad intentions gets hold of your personal information, including your driver's license number and Social Security number, that person can commit crimes using your name, said Brian Hofer, executive director of Oakland nonprofit Secure Justice and former chair of Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission. For consumers with exposed personal data, especially when it is posted on the dark web, "the potential harm is enormous" and "unlimited," Hofer said in an interview. Stolen personal information can be sold on the dark web for pennies on the dollar and "because the same data can be sold over and over and over, it's likely to be in the hands of more people than via a commercial service" selling personal information like LexisNexis, Hofer wrote in an email. Hofer said he suffered from identity theft himself a few years ago and it took him three years to get his credit report cleaned up because of the many fraudulent entries and fake accounts opened in his name. A lot of the personal information found in data breaches is already publicly accessible for many U.S. consumers, but each subsequent breach adds a bit to a person's digital profile -- or footprint -- and brings additional context to their lives, explained Pegah K. Parsi, chief privacy officer for the University of California, San Diego. The first instance of a breach of someone's Social Security number or driver's license number may be the most significant, but "each additional one still matters," she wrote in an email. California's Department of Financial Protection and Innovation fined Patelco $100,000 through a consent order in February and ordered the credit union improve its cybersecurity systems and practices. Patelco has paid the penalty and submitted an action plan and quarterly progress report to improve its cybersecurity, agency spokesperson Daniel Emmons wrote in an email. The U.S. legal and regulatory landscape does a mediocre job of holding institutions accountable, Parsi wrote, adding that most companies still view privacy through the lens of risk to the organization rather than risk to the individual. This leaves consumers at "greater and greater risk" as more and more of their data is collected, used, bought and sold, she wrote. This could also lead to organizations taking consumer risk less seriously and arguing that, "'It's already out there so no big deal or bad press to the org if more is then leaked,'" Parsi wrote. When asked to comment, Patelco spokesman Brian Davis wrote that "we don't have anything to add" and would not answer questions about the class action case or the effects of the data breach on account holders. Patelco was established in 1936 by employees from the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, which later became AT&T. According to Patelco's 2024 annual report, the credit union has $9.4 billion in assets and close to 500,000 members nationwide. The company operates 36 branches in and around Sacramento and the greater Bay Area, including two in San Francisco. The U.S. government urges companies to take proactive measures to safeguard their systems and data from ransomware, explained Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency spokesperson Marci McCarthy. Essential cybersecurity practices include enabling multifactor authentication, enforcing strong passwords, keeping software updated and training employees to recognize and avoid phishing attempts, she wrote in an email. McCarthy advised that for consumers whose data has been compromised in a breach, it is crucial that they closely monitor their accounts and credit reports and report any suspicious activity immediately to authorities. [GN] PENN MEDICINE: Sutton Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penn Medicine. The case is styled as Barbara Sutton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penn Medicine, Case No. 250600612 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, June 4, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Tort. Penn Medicine -- https://www.pennmedicine.org/ -- is dedicated to high-quality patient care and service, advancing medical science through research, and educating the next generation of leaders in medicine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (305) 529-8858 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com PEPGEN INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against PepGen Inc. ("PepGen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:PEPG) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 25-cv-03221, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired PepGen securities between March 7, 2024 and March 3, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired PepGen securities during the Class Period, you have until August 8, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. PepGen is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that focuses on the development of oligonucleotide therapeutics for use in the treatment of severe neuromuscular and neurologic diseases. The Company's lead product candidate was PGN-EDO51, a proprietary enhanced delivery oligonucleotide ("EDO") peptide for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy ("DMD"), a genetic disorder characterized by progressive muscle degeneration and weakness. DMD is caused by the mutation of the dystrophin gene, resulting in, inter alia, a limited production of the dystrophin protein, which in turn leads to DMD's clinical features. According to PepGen, "PGN-EDO51 [wa]s designed to skip exon 51 of the dystrophin transcript, an established therapeutic target for approximately 13% of DMD patients, thereby . . . enabling the production of a truncated, yet functional dystrophin protein." PepGen had been evaluating PGN-EDO51 as a treatment for DMD in two Phase 2 clinical trials-the CONNECT1-EDO51 ("CONNECT1") and CONNECT2-EDO51 ("CONNECT2") studies. At all relevant times, Defendants touted PGN-EDO51's clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects, including, inter alia, PGN-EDO51's ability to produce the dystrophin protein and the design, prospects, and results of the CONNECT1 and CONNECT2 studies. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) PGN-EDO51 was less effective and safe than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) the CONNECT2 study was dangerous or otherwise deficient for purposes of U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, PepGen was likely to halt the CONNECT2 study, and PGN-EDO51's clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 30, 2024, PepGen issued a press release announcing purported "positive clinical data from the first dose cohort (5 mg/kg) of PGN-EDO51" in its ongoing CONNECT1 study. Among other results, the Company reported that "PGN-EDO51 achieved a mean absolute dystrophin level of 0.61% of normal and a 0.26% change from baseline after 4 doses, measured at week 13 by Western blot analysis." However, as subsequently noted by a Stifel analyst, "the magnitude of dystrophin increase was below what [PepGen] anticipated, which is disappointing[.]" Likewise, a Leerink Partners analyst noted that the low dose missed PepGen's expectations of 1% or greater dystrophin expression. On this news, PepGen's stock price fell $5.55 per share, or 32.69%, to close at $11.43 per share on July 31, 2024. On December 16, 2024, PepGen issued a press release announcing that it had received a clinical hold notice from the FDA regarding an Investigational New Drug ("IND") application "to initiate the [CONNECT2] clinical trial in patients with [DMD]" in the U.S. Notably, the FDA's issuance of a clinical hold notice for the IND application indicated that the FDA had concerns regarding risks posed to patients in the CONNECT2 study and/or there were other deficiencies associated with the study. On this news, PepGen's stock price fell $0.17 per share, or 3.63%, to close at $4.51 per share on December 16, 2024. On January 29, 2025, PepGen issued a press release providing updates regarding safety concerns observed in the CONNECT1 study and the FDA's concerns regarding the CONNECT2 study. With respect to the CONNECT1 study, the press release stated, inter alia, that "[d]osing of one of the[] . . . participants [in the 10 mg/kg cohort] was paused due to a reduction of his estimated glomerular filtration rate[.]" In addition, PepGen "ha[d] received communication from Health Canada . . . request[ing] additional information from the Company to address Health Canada's safety concerns before any further dose escalation or enrollment of any additional participants at the current dose levels." With respect to the CONNECT2 study, the same press release stated, in relevant part, that "[t]he Company is working with the FDA to address its questions regarding supportive data for the dosing levels planned for the patient population." Following these disclosures, PepGen's stock price fell $0.40 per share, or 21.74%, to close at $1.44 per share on January 30, 2025. On March 4, 2025, PepGen issued a press release "announc[ing] its voluntary decision to temporarily pause the [CONNECT2] study . . . until the Company can review results from the 10 mg/kg cohort in the ongoing [CONNECT1] study." On this news, PepGen's stock price fell $0.53 per share, or 18.86%, to close at $2.28 per share on March 4, 2025. Then, on May 28, 2025, PepGen issued a press release announcing that "PGN-EDO51 did not achieve target dystrophin levels" in the CONNECT1 study and had chosen to discontinue development of its DMD programs. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] PIEDMONT AIRLINES: Dixon Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicole Dixon, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. PIEDMONT AIRLINES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV02595 was removed from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Sonoma, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-04734. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims against Piedmont for its alleged failure to pay minimum wages, pay overtime wages, provide one day of rest for every seven days worked or pay attendant overtime wages, provide compliant meal periods or pay attendant premiums, provide compliant rest periods or pay attendant premiums, timely pay wages during employment, provide accurate itemized wage statements, timely pay wages upon separation from employment, and reimburse employees for necessary business expenses.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mark W. Robertson, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: mrobertson@omm.com - and - Kelly S. Wood, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 Email: kwood@omm.com PLAYAGS INC: Court Dismisses Chowdhury Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Anne R. Traum of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed without prejudice the case captioned as MANJAN A. CHOWDHURY, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant PLAYAGS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DAVID LOPEZ, KIMO AKIONA, DAVID SAMBUR, DANIEL COHEN, ERIC PRESS, YVETTE E. LANDAU, ADAM CHIBIB, GEOFF FREEMAN, and ANNA MASSION, Defendants, and PLAYAGS, INC., Nominal Defendant, CaseNo.2:22-cv-00489-ART-DJA (D. Nev.) as to Plaintiff, AGS, and/or any other AGS shareholder. On March 18, 2022, Manjan A. Chowdhury commenced the action allegedly on behalf of PlayAGS, Inc. ("AGS") against the Defendants David Lopez, Kimo Akiona, David Sambur, Daniel Cohen, Eric Press, Yvette E. Landau, Adam Chibib, Geoff Freeman, and Anna Massion, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 9, 2022, the Court granted the parties' stipulation staying proceedings pending resolution of the motions to dismiss (and exhaustion of any appeals) filed in the related action, captioned In re PlayAGS, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01209-JCM-NJK (the "Securities Class Action"). On Dec. 2, 2022, the motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action were granted-in-part and denied-in-part. On Jan. 17, 2023, AGS and Defendants Lopez and Akiona ("Executive Defendants") filed an Answer in the Securities Class Action and a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the sole remaining claim. On Jan. 27, 2023, the Court granted the parties' stipulation staying proceedings pending resolution of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the Securities Class Action pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Parties' so-ordered stipulation. On Feb. 12, 2024, the Court granted the AGS and Executive Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the Securities Class Action with prejudice. On March 14, 2024, the Securities Class Action Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, which was docketed as Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. PlayAGS, Inc., et al., No. 24-01701 (9th Cir.). On Dec. 18, 2024, the Court granted the parties' joint request to stay proceedings pending final decision in the Securities Class Action Appeal. On March 27, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Securities Class Action. As a result, Plaintiff wishes to voluntarily dismiss this Action pursuant to Rules 23.1(c) and 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without prejudice to Plaintiff, AGS, and/or any other AGS shareholder. The parties agree that the dismissal is not, and shall not be deemed to be, an adjudication of this Action on the merits, and that each Party shall bear its own fees and costs incurred in connection with this Action. The Parties agree and submit that notice to shareholders of this dismissal is unnecessary in this case because: (i) the dismissal is without prejudice to the ability of any AGS shareholder, or AGS itself, to pursue the claims; (ii) there has been no settlement or compromise of the Action; (iii) there has been no collusion among the Parties; and (iv) neither Plaintiff nor his counsel have received or will receive directly or indirectly any consideration from Defendants for the dismissal. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yxWiiA from PacerMonitor.com. Counsel for Plaintiff Manjan Chowdhury: John P. Aldrich, Esq. ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD. 7866 West Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 Telephone: 702.853.5490 Facsimile: 702.227.1975 Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: prajesh@glancylaw.com Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10151 Telephone: 212.935.7400 Facsimile: 212.756.3630 Email: bsachsmichaels@glancylaw.com Attorneys for Defendants David Lopez, Kimo Akiona, David Sambur, Daniel Cohen, Eric Press, Yvette E. Landau, Adam Chibib, Geoff Freeman, and Anna Massion, and Nominal Defendant PlayAGS Inc.: Kirk B. Lenhard, Esq. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 100 N. City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, NV 89106 Telephone: 702.382.2101 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 Email: klenhard@bhfs.com Douglas W. Greene, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: 212.589.4200 Facsimile: 212.589.4201 Email: dgreene@bakerlaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Willis Sues Over Mislabeled Tissue Products ------------------------------------------------------------- TERETTA WILLIS and SHARON BECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04461 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2025) alleges that P&G Charmin Toilet Paper and Puffs Tissue Paper Products' packaging is deceptive, misleading, and unfair because without full disclosure, Plaintiffs and the New York Class believed the P&G Paper Products to be environmentally sustainable and to have environmental benefits. According to the complaint, P&G devotes considerable resources to maintaining and disseminating to the public an umbrella marketing campaign entitled Keep Forests as Forests. To reinforce the Protect-Grow-Restore promises to consumers at point-of-sale, P&G consistently includes a uniform Protect-Grow-Restore logo on all its Charmin Toilet Paper and Puffs Tissues packages in stores. Moreover, P&G's use of the FSC and Rainforest Alliance logos are also misleading and erroneous. In the case of the Forest Stewardship Council logo, P&G continues to put the unqualified FSC logo on the front of its packaging and tout that "100%" of its wood pulp is FSC-certified, even though only a small fraction of P&G's pulp is sourced from FSC-certified forests, says the suit. 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, including Plaintiffs, the suit alleges. Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 594 Dean Street, Suite 24 Brooklyn, NY 11238 Telephone: (212) 752-5455 Facsimile: (917) 210-3980 E-mail: nathant@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Catherine Y.N. Gannon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com catherineg@hbsslaw.com RACK ROOM SHOES: Porcelli Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Madison Porcelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc., Case No. 50-02025-CA-00403 was removed from the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:25-cv-80696-RLR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Rack Room Shoes -- https://www.rackroomshoes.com/ -- is an American footwear retailer headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Aaron Glickman, Esq. Shawn Alex Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 6709 West 119th Street, #198 Overland Park, KS 66209 Phone: (913) 213-3064 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew A. Keilson, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 218 Northwest 24th Street, Ste. 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 498-3216 Email: mkeilson@wtlaw.com RANLIFE INC: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ranlife, Inc. The case is styled as Cari Johnson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ranlife, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00441-AMA (D. Utah, June 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. RANLife -- https://www.ranlife.com/ -- is a home loan lender and servicer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David James McGlothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: david@kazlg.com - and - Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com RB GLOBAL: Ultra Home Sues Over Price-Fixing Scheme --------------------------------------------------- ULTRA HOME SET, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RB GLOBAL, INC., ROUSE SERVICES LLC, UNITED RENTALS, INC., UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC., SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., HERC RENTALS INC., HERC HOLDINGS INC., H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., and SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05951 (N.D. Ill., May 28, 2025) is a civil antitrust action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of entities and individuals who rent construction equipment within the United States, seeking relief from the Defendants who conspired to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices nationwide in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The case seeks to hold Rouse and the Rental Company Defendants accountable for designing and implementing an unlawful cartel to increase the price of construction and industrial equipment rentals across the nation. The equipment at issue -- lifts, dozers, excavators, hoes, steers, compaction equipment, loaders, and the like -- is used in residential and commercial construction and has many industrial applications. This equipment is commonly rented rather than purchased. The Defendants' conspiracy -- a price-fixing scheme orchestrated by the Rouse Defendants -- has artificially inflated the cost of renting construction equipment to individuals and entities like Plaintiff. At the core of this unlawful cartel lies Rouse Services, a data analytics platform operated by Rouse. Through this platform, Rouse collects detailed transaction data, including daily invoice-level pricing, rental terms, fleet inventory snapshots, equipment utilization rates, and other competitively sensitive information. Rouse and the Rental Company Defendants have violated and continue to violate U.S. antitrust laws. Instead of setting their rental rates independently, the Rental Company Defendants, who control much of the nation's construction equipment rental market, outsource rate-setting to a common entity -- Rouse. By acting collectively through Rouse, the Rental Company Defendants eliminate competition between themselves, alleges the suit. RB Global, Inc. operates as a major global marketplace providing asset management services, transaction solutions, and analytical insights for buyers and sellers of commercial assets and vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erich P. Schork, Esq. Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Kelly A Rinehart, Esq. Morgan Mackey, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC 1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 E-mail: erichschork@robertslawfirm.us mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us morganhunt-mackey@robertslawfirm.us RED CAT: Faces Olsen Suit Over 21.54% Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------- DYLAN OLSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RED CAT HOLDINGS, INC., JEFFREY THOMPSON, LEAH LUNGER, JOSEPH HERNON, GEORGE MATUS, GEOFFREY HITCHCOCK, and BRENDAN STEWART, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05427 (D.N.J., May 23, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Red Cat securities between March 18, 2022 and January 15, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Red Cat manufactures its drones through its subsidiary Teal Drones, Inc. at a facility located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Throughout 2022, the Defendants touted their development of the Salt Lake City Facility's capacity to produce "thousands of drones per month" or "tens of thousands of drones" per year. In March 2022, Red Cat announced that Teal had been selected by the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Unit and the U.S. Army to compete in Tranche 21 of the U.S. Army's Short Range Reconnaissance Program of Record. The SRR Program is a U.S. Army initiative to provide a small, rucksack-portable small unmanned aircraft system to U.S. Army platoons. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Salt Lake City Facility's production capacity, and Defendants' progress in developing the same, was overstated; (ii) the overall value of the SRR Contract was overstated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On this news, Red Cat's stock price fell $2.35 per share, or 21.54%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $8.56 per share on January 17, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, alleges the suit. Red Cat Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides various products, services, and solutions to the U.S. drone industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com RENT THE RUNWAY: Bid to Stay Sharma Case Discovery Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to stay discovery in the case captioned as RAJAT SHARMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- RENT THE RUNWAY, INC., JENNIFER Y. HYMAN, SCARLETT O'SULLIVAN, TIM BIXBY, JENNIFER FLEISS, SCOTT FRIEND, MELANIE HARRIS, BETH KAPLAN, DAN NOVA, GWYNETH PALTROW, CARLEY RONEY, DAN ROSENSWEIG, MIKE ROTH, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, PIPER SANDLER & CO., WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, JMP SECURITIES LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., and TELSEY ADVISORY GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-06935-OEM-TAM (E.D.N.Y.). On Nov. 14, 2022, Rajat Sharma, who purchased Rent the Runway, Inc., common stock, filed this lawsuit against Defendant Rent the Runway, Inc., a range of the company's officers, directors, and non-employees, and underwriters for allegedly issuing a false and misleading registration statement and final IPO prospectus in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On Aug. 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding Delaware Public Employees Retirement System and Denver Employees Retirement Plan as lead Plaintiffs and adding a claim alleging that Defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. On Sept. 25, 2024, the Honorable Orelia E. Merchant granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On Oct. 30, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration. Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to extend the answer deadline and to stay discovery, which argues that this Court should stay discovery while the motion for reconsideration remains pending. Defendants contend that a stay would be proper either under the mandatory stay provision of the PSLRA or pursuant to the Court's discretionary authority. Plaintiffs disagree and posit that the stay motion is without merit and constitutes a further effort to delay this litigation. The Court declines to enter a mandatory stay or a complete discretionary stay of discovery. In recognition of the pending motion for reconsideration, and the significant burden discovery would pose for Defendants, the parties are directed to meet and confer to exchange initial disclosures and to discuss approaches to the first phase of discovery that would limit the burden on Defendants and to identify what particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence. For these reasons, the motion to stay discovery is granted in part and denied in part and Defendants' motion to extend the answer deadline is granted. Defendants' time to answer is held in abeyance pending resolution of the pending motion for reconsideration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2p46Wj from PacerMonitor.com. ROBERT F. KENNEDY: Jackson Files Suit in D. Columbia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fastruck Moving, LLC. The case is styled as Catherine Jackson, Melissa Adams, Carrie Greene, Vid Desai, Shawn Chenault, Brendan Demich, Fonda Kornegay, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; RUSSELL VOUGHT, in his official capacity as Director of Office of Management and Budget; OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; ELON MUSK, in his official capacity as de facto leader of DOGE; AMY GLEASON, in her official capacity as DOGE Administrator; U.S. DOGE SERVICE; U.S. DOGE SERVICE TEMPORARY ORGANIZATION; CHARLES EZELL, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Office of Personnel Management; U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; ANDREW GRADISON, in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Secretary at the Administration for Children and Families; ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; MARTIN MAKARY, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Food and Drug Administration; U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; SUSAN MONAREZ, in her official capacity as Acting Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01750-BAH (D.D.C., June 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Right to Privacy Act. Robert Francis Kennedy Jr., also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, author, conspiracy theorist, and anti-vaccine activist serving as the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 2025.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayton Louis Bailey, Esq. CIVIL SERVICE LAW CENTER LLP 1325 G Street NW, Ste. 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 571-7836 Email: clayton.l.bailey@usdoj.gov SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lease Class Allegations ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jodi W. Dishman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Sandridge Exploration and Production, LLC's motion to dismiss the proposed class allegations and claims in plaintiff's first amended class action complaint in the case captioned as GREGG B. COLTON, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CIV-22-00986-JD (W.D. Okla.). In Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint, he brings an individual claim and a class action suit against Defendant. Plaintiff defines the class as follows: Persons and entities to whom Sandridge, at any time since November 14, 2017, has paid royalties on natural gas produced from wells in Oklahoma under oil and gas leases ("Subclass I Leases") which expressly prohibit the lessee's deduction of gathering costs in the calculation of royalties paid to the lessor ("Subclass I Leases"), and whose royalty payments received from Sandridge were reduced as a result of gathering deductions taken by Sandridge in its calculation and payment of royalties. ("Subclass I members"). Excluded from Subclass I are: (1) agencies, departments and instrumentalities of the United States of America, including the United States Department of the Interior, Indian tribes, and Indian allottees; and (2) Sandridge and its affiliates. Plaintiff and the proposed class members are parties to leases pursuant to which Defendant has paid them royalties on natural gas products produced and marketed by Defendant from wells located in Oklahoma since Nov. 14, 2017. Plaintiff entered an oil and gas lease with Defendant on Oct. 18, 2014. Plaintiff asserts Defendant has undercalculated his royalty payments in breach of the Lease. He contends that Defendant has also underpaid royalties due to putative class members who have leases consistent with the class definition by deducting gathering costs from the price Defendant received on its sale of natural gas products to third party purchasers, thus basing its royalty payments on a price substantially less than the price Defendant received. He asserts claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment on his behalf and on behalf of the putative class members. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendant moves to dismiss the class allegations. Defendant makes a lone argument for the dismissal of Plaintiff's class allegations -- that the members of the class as defined by Plaintiff are not presently ascertainable. Because the Court would have to review individual lease terms to ascertain class members, Defendant argues identifying class members is not "administratively feasible." Plaintiff argues that his proposed class is readily ascertainable because: (1) Plaintiff's attorney, by conducting a limited search of public records, has identified oil and gas leases with royalty provisions that are the same as Plaintiff's, and (2) Defendant electronically stores its oil and gas leases and can search them for leases with provisions expressly prohibiting the deduction of gathering costs. The Court finds Plaintiff has shown a plausible entitlement to relief. The Court concludes Plaintiff has met its burden of proof, upon a motion to dismiss, to demonstrate his proposed class is presently ascertainable. In this case, it is administratively feasible to ascertain class members because the Court can identify them by objective standards -- whether they have lease provisions prohibiting deductions for gathering costs and whether Defendant paid the lessors royalties reduced by gathering deductions during the applicable period. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xUCB7u from PacerMonitor.com. SCENARIO B: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Erika Alexandria, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SCENARIO B HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04654 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.billysbakerynyc.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.billysbakerynyc.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SELECTQUOTE INC: Lightfoot TCPA Case Dismissed Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mary M. Rowland of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted SelectQuote, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the case captioned as RONALD LIGHTFOOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SELECTQUOTE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04673 (N.D. Ill.). The FAC is dismissed without prejudice. SelectQuote is a major insurance broker that offers life, auto, home, and medical insurance. According to Lightfoot, SelectQuote initiated a nationwide telemarketing campaign to sell more insurance products and bombarded consumers' cell phones with pre-recorded messages promoting its insurance products. Rather than place calls to consumers directly, SelectQuote hired, funded, and directed third-party lead generators to make unsolicited calls on its behalf. Lightfoot alleges that on Oct. 20, 2023, he received a prerecorded phone call promoting SelectQuote's insurance products even though he never consented to receiving any calls. He claims that this prerecorded call was one of millions in an unsolicited, nationwide telemarketing campaign that violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Lightfoot brings this action against SelectQuote on behalf of a putative class that includes "all persons in the United State who (i) received a pre-recorded telemarketing call, (ii) on their cellular telephone, (iii) from Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant)." Lightfoot alleges that no one in the class previously interacted with or consented to calls from SelectQuote. He filed this action on June 5, 2024. Before the Court is SelectQuote's motion to dismiss. SelectQuote argues the FAC should be dismissed because Lightfoot seeks to hold SelectQuote vicariously liable for the actions of third-party lead generators but failed to allege sufficient facts to support a finding of actual or apparent authority, or to show SelectQuote ratified the acts of the third-party lead generators. Plaintiff does not allege any facts in the operative complaint that links SelectQuote to the alleged phone call. The Court finds in this case, Lightfoot has not plausibly linked SelectQuote's conduct to the call he received. The alleged pre-recorded message did not include any information that would link SelectQuote to the call. According to the Court, Lightfoot has failed to plausibly allege that SelectQuote caused him to receive the call at issue. Therefore, he has failed to plead a violation of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l9Qwqo from PacerMonitor.com. SELIP & STYLIANOU: Wentzell FDCPA Suit Remanded to State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Julien Xavier Neals of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey remanded the class action captioned as SANDY WENTZELL on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SELIP & STYLIANOU, LLP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-20187-JXN-JSA (D.N.J.). to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County. At some time prior to January of 2021, Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation to Discover Bank for personal expenses. Plaintiff defaulted on the debt, and Discover referred it to Selip to recover the balance owed on Plaintiff's Discover Obligation. Thereafter, Selip sent Plaintiff a debt collection letter dated Jan. 27, 2021, in connection with the post-judgment collection of Plaintiff's Discover Obligation. On Oct. 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed this putative class action, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, against Selip in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq. On Nov. 24, 2021, Selip removed the Complaint to the Dsistrict Court based on the FDCPA claim and supplemental jurisdiction as to her state-law claim. On Jan/ 17, 2022, Selip filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, which it later withdrew as a result of Plaintiff filing an Amended Complaint on Jan. 31, 2022. The Amended Complaint further claims that Selip violated several provisions of the FDCPA, including 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f4 by misrepresenting in the Collection letter that Discover allowed for post-judgment interest to accrue on the debt and failed to advise Plaintiff of the correct post-judgment interest rate that can be assessed on the judgment. On May 21, 2022, Selip moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and as partially barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Plaintiff opposed Selip's motion, and Selip replied in further support. On June 30, 2023, the District Court denied Selip's motion without prejudice pending the submission of supplemental briefing addressing Plaintiff's Article III standing. In their supplemental briefing, the parties concede that the Amended Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff has suffered a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury so as to provide her with Article III standing to pursue her claims in federal court. The District Court agrees. According to the District Court, the Plaintiff fails to allege that she relied on Selip's representations, such that her injury-in-law is transformed into an injury-in-fact. Indeed, there is no allegation that Plaintiff sustained any financial or emotional harm because of the Collection Letter. Absent allegations of any concrete harm, Plaintiff is asserting merely statutory violations, which the Supreme Court has made clear are insufficient to confer standing. Thus, Plaintiff lacks Article III standing, and the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, this action is remanded to the State Court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0sWxK8 from PacerMonitor.com. SHING FAT: Faces Vasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHING FAT STORE INC. (D/B/A NYC 99 CENTS), WEI GUANG HUANG, and XSIAO WEI YE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02968 (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices and policies in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Vasquez worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day; failed to provide with a written notice, in English and in Spanish of his rate of pay; and failed to furnish accurate statement of wages. Plaintiff Vasquez worked for the Defendants as a stocker from approximately 2018 until on or about May 10, 2025. Shing Fat Store Inc. is a discount store owned by Wei Guang Huang and Xsiao Wei Ye located in Astoria, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 SITIO ROYALTIES: M&A Investigates Sale to Viper Energy ------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Sitio Royalties Corp. (NYSE: STR) related to its sale to Viper Energy, Inc. The merger consideration will consist of 0.4855 shares of Class A common stock of a new holding company ("New Viper") for each share of Sitio Class A common stock, 0.4855 units of Viper's operating subsidiary, Viper Energy Partners LLC, for each unit of Sitio's operating subsidiary, and 0.4855 units of Class B common stock of pro forma Viper for each share of Sitio Class C common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sitio-royalties-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cyber Attack ----------------------------------------------------------------- WABI5 reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Joseph Hospital and its parent company Covenant Health following the hospital's cyber attack in May 2025. According to court paperwork filed in Penobscot County, Michael McClain of Bangor alleges the hospital and its parent company failed to "properly secure and safeguard private information." Covenant Health said the hospital experienced a cyber incident initiated by an outside group that affected phone and internet access. Covenant Health says access to data systems were immediately discontinued once they were alerted to the breach. In the court filing, McClain and members of the class action lawsuit allege the breach puts them at imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Covenant Health says they are aware of the filing but declined to comment on the lawsuit. [GN] STATE FARM: Court Declines to Stay Young Insurance Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied the plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay the class action lawsuit captioned as GLORIA CELESTE YOUNG PLAINTIFF v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-175-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.). On Nov. 13, 2023, Young filed this putative class action relating to fire damage to her residence, which was insured by a home insurance policy issued by Defendant State Farm. She alleges that State Farm used the "Xactimate" software program in a wrongful manner to calculate the repair and construction costs for her loss. She asserts that State Farm fraudulently concealed this wrongful practice from her and similarly situated policyholders. On Feb. 10, 2025, State Farm filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the parties' respective appraisers agreed upon an amount of loss, which it has paid. According to State Farm, the appraised loss amount was based on an estimate using the very Xactimate setting that Young alleged was improper. It argues that this action should be dismissed as the central dispute has been resolved. Young opposes the motion. On May 14, 2025 -- three months after the motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed and after more than five months of discovery—Plaintiff moved to stay this action pending resolution of the motion. Young argues that a stay will conserve the resources of the parties and the Court. She points out that disposition of the motion for judgment on the pleadings might identify and frame any surviving issues or might preclude the need for continued litigation altogether. But, that is the case when any preliminary motion is filed seeking dismissal of an action. Young has failed to identify any specific discovery or action that would be particularly burdensome over and above those typically encountered in litigation, nor has she shown other good cause for further delay, the Court finds. Judge Parker holds that this putative class action has already been pending for more than 18 months. A class certification motion is due on July 8, 2025. A stay would delay this action, and the Court and the parties have an interest in moving this case forward. If issues remain following a ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, this action should be positioned such that final disposition may be achieved in a timely manner. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q5oeKG from PacerMonitor.com. STRATEGY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Strategy Incorporated that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between April 30, 2024 and April 4, 2025. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) the anticipated profitability of the Company's bitcoin--focused investment strategy and treasury operations was overstated; (ii) the various risks associated with bitcoin's volatility and the magnitude of losses Strategy could recognize on the value of its digital assets following its adoption of ASU 2023-08 were understated; and (iii) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Strategy Incorporated stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra--1/strategy--incorporated--lawsuit--submission--form?prid=152137&wire=1&utm_campaign=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally--recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high--stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] TCI TEXARKANA: Howard Sues Over Seeking to Receive Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Howard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TCI TEXARKANA, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00074-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex., June 4, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to receive overtime pay from Defendant as a result of its failure to pay Plaintiff and all those similarly situated employees overtime wages. The Defendants misclassified these workers as independent contractors and failed to pay them overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. The Defendants suffered or permitted these workers to work more than 40 hours in a work week but did not pay them overtime wages. Instead, Defendant paid these workers a straight hourly rate with no federal withholding, social security or Medicare taxes withheld. The Defendants' failure to pay overtime to these workers violates the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by TCI Texarkana in Texarkana, Texas. TCI Texarkana & Sheet Metal, LLC is a foreign corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Phone/Facsimile: 903-596-7100 Email: bhommel@hommelfirm.com TD SYNNEX: Smith Wage Lawsuit Remanded to State Court ----------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Jesus G. Bernal of the United States District Court for the Central District of California remands the case captioned as JORDAN SMITH, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated Class Members, Plaintiff, v. TD SYNNEX CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; AVT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.: 5:24-cv-01372-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal.) back to the San Bernardino County Superior Court. The Complaint alleges seven causes of action which Plaintiff pursues on a class-wide basis: recovery of unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages; recovery of unpaid overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair competition. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pDd5h3 from PacerMonitor.com. TELEPHONE AND DATA: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. ("TDS") securities (NYSE: TDS, TDSPrU, TDSPrV): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES To: All persons and entities similarly situated, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of TDS between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022, inclusive (the "Settlement Class"). Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, TDS and United States Cellular Corporation ("UScellular") and their subsidiaries, affiliates, and respective officers and directors at all relevant times, and any of their immediate families, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are all persons or entities who would otherwise be members of the Settlement Class, but who exclude themselves by validly and timely submitting a request for exclusion. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Howard M. Rensin, Trustee Of The Rensin Joint Trust, on behalf of himself and all members of the Settlement Class, and TDS, UScellular, Laurent C. Therivel, and Douglas W. Chambers (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $7,750,000.00 (the "Settlement"). Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel estimate that if all affected TDS shares elect to participate in the Settlement, the average recovery per share could be approximately $0.50 for TDS common stock, $0.11 for TDS Series UU preferred stock, and $0.10 for TDS Series VV preferred stock, before deduction of any fees, expenses, costs, and awards as described in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "detailed Notice"). In exchange for the Settlement and the release of the Releasing Plaintiff's Parties' Claims against the Released Defendants' Parties, Defendants have agreed to create a $7,750,000.00 cash fund, which may accrue interest, to be distributed, after deduction of Court-awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other fees or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund"), among all Settlement Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms and are found to be eligible to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund ("Authorized Claimants"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland on September 3, 2025, 2025 at 1:00 p.m., in Courtroom 1225 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, consider whether: (i) the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved; (ii) the proposed plan for allocating the proceeds of the Settlement to Settlement Class Members (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and (iii) Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, and any award to the Lead Plaintiff for his time and expenses in representing the interests of the Settlement Class, are reasonable and should be approved. This notice describes important rights you may have and what steps you must take if you wish to participate in the Settlement, object, or be excluded from the Settlement Class. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically or via videoconference, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. A detailed Notice and Claim Form can be obtained by visiting the Settlement website, www.strategicclaims.net/tds/, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: TDS Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 info@strategicclaims.net Toll-free: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Tel: (203) 992-4523 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com gpotrepka@zlk.com If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (for U.S. mail), received by the private carrier (for FedEx, UPS, etc.), or submitted online no later than August 27, 2025 to the Claims Administrator at the address above. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the detailed Notice such that it is postmarked (for U.S. mail), received by the private carrier (for FedEx, UPS, etc.), or e-mailed, no later than August 13, 2025 to the Claims Administrator. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application including a Lead Plaintiff Award, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation, must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the detailed Notice, such that they are postmarked (for U.S. mail), received by the private carrier (for FedEx, UPS, etc.), or e-mailed, no later than August 13, 2025. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: MAY 8, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS [GN] TETRA TECH: Settlement in Brown Suit Obtains Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Daniel J. Calabretta of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted final approval of the class, collective, and representative action settlement in the case captioned as LAGARION BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TETRA TECH, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01133-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Lagarion Brown, Roy Jackson, Yaphett Saunders, Isaac Saunders, Hakeem Allambie, and Nichlon Garrett seek final approval of their Rule 23 class, FLSA collective, and Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") representative action settlement on behalf of themselves and similarly situated environmental and geotechnical service workers employed by Defendant Jesco Environmental and Geotechnical Services, Inc. to perform post-disaster assessments and cleanup in Butte County, California for Defendant Tetra Tech, Inc. between June 3, 2016 and May 1, 2022. There are 194 members of the Class, which includes employees belonging to one or more of the following three subsets: (1) the Rule 23 Class, (2) the PAGA Class, and (3) the FLSA Collective. Plaintiffs allege, in short, that Defendants failed to provide all Class Members with legally required meal periods. After participating in mediation before a third-party neutral, the Parties reached an agreement for a non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount of $600,000. The Parties request the Settlement be allocated as follows: (1) 1/3 of the total, or $200,000, in attorneys' fees; (2) $12,368.89 in litigation expenses; (3) $10,000 to each of the six Class Representatives; (4) $50,000 to settle Plaintiffs' PAGA claim, $37,500 of which will be paid to the California Labor and Workplace Development Agency ("LWDA") and $12,500 of which will be distributed to PAGA Class Members; (5) $7,000 in fees to the Settlement Administrator; and (6) a Net Settlement Amount of approximately $270,631.11 for distribution to participating Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective Members. Any unclaimed funds will be sent to a cy pres beneficiary. On April 4, 2024, the Court conditionally certified the Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective and, for purposes of settlement, appointed Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions as Class Administrator, Plaintiffs Lagarion Brown, Roy Jackson, Yaphett Saunders, Isaac Saunders, Hakeem Allambie, and Nichlon Garrett as Class Representatives, and Mallison & Martinez as Class Counsel. On Aug. 12, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Parties' proposed class, collective, and representative action settlement. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final certification of the settlement class and collective; final approval of the settlement; and award of attorneys' fees, litigation costs, settlement administration fees, and class representative awards. The Court held a final fairness hearing on May 1, 2025. The Court finds the Settlement in the Gross Settlement Amount of $600,000 is fair, reasonable, and adequate and the result of arm's-length informed negotiations. Thus, the terms set forth in the Settlement are approved. The Court finds that the releases in the Settlement are appropriate. All Participating Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective Members and Plaintiffs are bound by the releases as set forth in the Settlement. Further, all PAGA Class Members will release Defendants and the Released Parties from all PAGA claims for civil penalties alleged as set forth in the Settlement. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Lagarion Brown, Roy Jackson, Yaphett Saunders, Isaac Saunders, Hakeem Allambie, and Nichlon Garrett as the Class Representatives for settlement purposes only. The Class Representatives are each awarded $10,000 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement and for their services as Class Representatives. The Court appoints Mallison & Martinez as Class Counsel for settlement purposes only. Class Counsel is awarded one-third (1/3) of the Gross Settlement Amount, amounting to $200,000, in attorneys' fees and $12,386.89 in costs for their work incurred in prosecuting this case. Each Party shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees beyond those provided by the Settlement. Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions is awarded $7,000 for its services as the Settlement Administrator and shall carry out its remaining obligations under the Settlement. The Court approves $50,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount to resolve PAGA claims with 75% of that portion ($37,500) to be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") as their share of the settlement for the civil penalties alleged and 25% ($12,500) to be distributed to the PAGA Class Members as their statutory share of the PAGA penalties. Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(s)(3), Plaintiffs shall submit a copy of this judgment to the LWDA within ten (10) calendar days of its execution and entry by the Court. The Court finds that Legal Aid at Work is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization which assists indigent workers with employment law claims. To the extent there remain any unclaimed settlement funds remaining from uncashed settlement checks, the Court approves Legal Aid at Work as an appropriate cy pres beneficiary and directs payment of such funds thereto. No settlement funds shall revert to Defendants. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MfwpW5 from PacerMonitor.com. THURSDAY BOOT: Faces Lee Suit Over Deceptive Consumers' Junk Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THURSDAY BOOT COMPANY, Defendant, 1:25-cv-04393 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2025) is a class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant Thursday Boot Company arising from its deceptive addition of junk fees to consumers' shopping carts. According to the complaint, thousands of e-commerce customers like Plaintiff have been assessed hidden shipping charges for which they did not bargain due to Thursday Boot's deceptive tactics. By unfairly obscuring their true shipping costs, the 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, says the suit. Thursday Boot Company offers a line of boots that are durable, good-looking and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. [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 Telephone: (202) 280-4783 Email: slevin@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (317) 695-1712 Email: tyler@jefirm.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Wilson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems Inc. The case is styled as Brian Wilson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01428-BTM-MSB (S.D. Cal., June 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Transworld Systems Inc. -- https://tsico.com/ -- is a leading technology enabled BPO partner providing receivables management, customer care, back office support and consumer loan servicing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (866) 219-3343 Fax: (866) 219-8344 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ UiPath Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New York. On June 20, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UiPath, CEO Daniel Dines, former CEO Robert Enslin, and CFO Ashim Gupta. The case was captioned Steiner v. UiPath, et al. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or acquired UiPath common stock between December 1, 2023 and May 29, 2024, and alleges that defendants made material misstatements and omissions, including regarding the Company's AI-powered Business Automation Platform and the Company's strategy for, the success of, and customer demand for the platform. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief as the Court deems appropriate. On August 6, 2024, a second putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UiPath, CEO Daniel Dines, former CEO Robert Enslin, and CFO Ashim Gupta. The case was captioned Brunozzi v. UiPath, et al. The allegations in the Brunozzi complaint were identical to those made in Steiner v. UiPath et al. except that the Brunozzi complaint defines the putative class to include purchasers of UiPath call options and sellers of put options. On September 5, 2024, the Court consolidated the Steiner and Brunozzi cases and appointed Brunozzi as the lead plaintiff. The consolidated action is captioned In re UiPath, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "2024 Securities Action"). On November 22, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against UiPath, former CEO Robert Enslin, and CFO Ashim Gupta. CEO Daniel Dines is no longer a named defendant in the 2024 Securities Action. The allegations in the amended complaints are substantively similar to the allegations set forth in the complaints previously filed in Steiner and Brunozzi, and the amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief as the Court deems appropriate. On April 21, 2025, the defendants motion to dismiss the amended complaint was fully submitted to the Court. The Company have not recorded any accrual related to the aforementioned litigation matters as of April 30, 2025, as it believes a loss in these matters is neither probable nor estimable at this time. UiPath is a global software company that makes robotic process automation software. UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- UiPath Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 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 September 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UiPath, then Co-Chief Executive Officer ("Co-CEO") Daniel Dines, and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Ashim Gupta, captioned In re UiPath, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "2023 Securities Action"). The initial complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleged that defendants made material misstatements and omissions, including regarding UiPath's competitive position and its financial results. On January 26, 2024, the lead plaintiff in the 2023 Securities Action filed an amended complaint, and on March 26, 2024, filed a further amended complaint, which alleges Securities Act claims under Sections 11 and 15 as well as Exchange Act claims under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a). In support of the Securities Act claims, the plaintiff alleges material misstatements and omissions in UiPath's April 2021 Registration Statement, including regarding UiPath's competitive position and its financial results. The operative complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired UiPath common stock between April 21, 2021 and September 27, 2022. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief as the Court deems appropriate. On April 23, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On November 4, 2024, the Court issued its opinion and order on the motion to dismiss, wherein it dismissed all claims under the Securities Act, but allowed the case to proceed with respect to two statements relating to competition that the plaintiffs allege violated the Exchange Act. On February 28, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel, and on April 29, 2025, defendants filed their opposition to the motion. On May 29, 2025, the plaintiff sought leave of the court to amend the second amended complaint. The Company have not recorded any accrual related to the aforementioned litigation matters as of April 30, 2025, as it believes a loss in these matters is neither probable nor estimable at this time. UiPath is a global software company that makes robotic process automation software. UNION PACIFIC: Wins Summary Judgment in Donahue, et al. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Union Pacific Railroad Company's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned as JUSTIN DONAHUE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00448-MMC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs are three former conductors for Union Pacific whose positions entailed reading and interpreting multicolored railroad traffic signal lights on signal masts. They were each responsible for train movement and, consequently, each was required to be certified by the Federal Railroad Administration. Union Pacific recertifies conductors and locomotive engineers every three years, in accordance with the Federal Railroad Administration's regulations. In 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively, Goss, Donahue, and Campbell took and failed the two tests administered by Union Pacific in those years, namely the 14-Plate Ishihara test and a color vision field test known as the Light Cannon. As a result, Union Pacific issued plaintiffs permanent work restrictions" prohibiting them from working as conductors or locomotive engineers. Plaintiffs challenge their work restrictions on the alleged ground that the Light Cannon test does not assess the employee's ability to recognize and distinguish between colors of railroad signals. Plaintiffs assert two claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), specifically, Count I, titled "Disability Discrimination - Disparate Treatment," and Count II, titled "Disability Discrimination – Disparate Impact." By the instant motion, Union Pacific seeks summary judgment, on the asserted grounds that: (1) plaintiffs' disparate impact claim is time-barred, (2) both claims are precluded by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20100 et seq., and (3) both claims fail on their merits. By order issued Sept. 16, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant as to both the disparate treatment and disparate impact claims, on the basis that both were time-barred, finding plaintiffs' ability to rely on the equitable tolling doctrine set forth in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), under which the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class ended when the named plaintiffs in Harris v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Case No. 16-cv-381-JFB-SMB, the putative class action on which plaintiffs relied, voluntarily abandoned their disparate impact claims and narrowed the class definition as to their disparate treatment claims. Plaintiffs appealed, and, on June 14, 2024, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the action. In light of such election by plaintiffs, their disparate impact claims were not addressed by the Ninth Circuit. In DeFries v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 104 F.4th 1091 (9th Cir. 2024), the plaintiff, like the plaintiffs in this, did not pursue his disparate impact claim on appeal, electing to proceed solely on his disparate treatment claim Consequently, the sole issue addressed was whether American Pipe tolling ended when the class definition as to the Harris plaintiffs' disparate treatment claim was voluntarily narrowed by the Harris plaintiffs' counsel. Union Pacific contends plaintiffs' ADA claims challenging the denial of their recertifications are precluded because the FRA has established, through the authority granted it by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, dispute resolution procedures that, according to Union Pacific, constitute the exclusive means by which plaintiffs are entitled to challenge such decisions. The Court finds plaintiffs' disparate treatment claims under the ADA are not precluded. Although plaintiffs dispute Union Pacific's assertion that they are, in fact, disabled, there is no disagreement that Union Pacific regarded them as disabled. The Court finds plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue as to the validity of the Light Cannon. Such evidence without more, however, is not sufficient to demonstrate plaintiffs are, in fact, qualified. The Court finds Donahue has raised a triable issue as to qualification and as to his removal on the basis of a perceived disability. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WkaBe3 from PacerMonitor.com. UNITE HERE: Data Security Settlement Obtains Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit styled In re UNITE HERE DATA SECURITY INCIDENT LITIGATION, Lead Case No. 1:24-cv-01565-JSR (S.D.N.Y.). On Jan. 10, 2025, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement entered into between (a) the Settlement Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class; and (b) Defendant UNITE HERE as memorialized in Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Mason A. Barney in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On Feb. 10, 2025, pursuant to the notice requirements set forth in the Settlement and in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Class Members were apprised of the nature and pendency of the Action, the terms of the Settlement, and their rights to request exclusion, object, and/or appear at the Final Fairness Hearing. On May 14, 2025, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing to determine, inter alia: (1) whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (2) whether judgment should be entered dismissing all claims in the Consolidated Complaint with prejudice. The Court finds that the uncertainties of continued litigation in both the trial and appellate courts, as well as the expense associated with it, weigh in favor of approval of the Settlement. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement, including, but not limited to, the releases in the Settlement and the plans for distribution of the settlement relief. It finds that the Settlement is in all respects fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class. Therefore, all Settlement Class Members who have not opted out are bound by the Settlement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Mason A. Barney and Tyler J. Bean of Sin & Glimstad LLP, and John J. Nelson of the law firm Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC as Class Counsel. It concludes that Class Counsel has adequately represented the Settlement Class and will continue to do so. The Court finds that Defendant has fully complied with the notice requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1715. The Court has considered Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. The Court awards Class Counsel $1,800,000.00 as an award of attorneys' fees to be paid in accordance with the Settlement, and it finds this amount to be fair and reasonable. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IBV2qd from PacerMonitor.com. USERTESTING INC: Court Dismisses Dickerson's 2nd Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint filed in the lawsuit entitled BRENNA DICKERSON, Plaintiff v. ANDY MACMILLAN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01320-AMO (N.D. Cal.). Because the Court determined the motion was suitable for decision without oral argument, it vacated the May 8, 2025 hearing. Judge Martinez-Olguin notes that this Order assumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case, including the Court's Order dismissing the first amended complaint. Also before the Court are four administrative motions to seal, which the Court grants for the reasons stated in this Order. There are four pending administrative motions to seal portions of the second amended class action complaint ("SAC"), the motion to dismiss, the opposition to the motion to dismiss, and related exhibits and documents. The Defendants move to seal the information included in their chart, which includes sensitive and confidential financial and business information. The Defendants argue the SAC and briefing and exhibits on the motion to dismiss contain sensitive financial and business information based on non-public Board materials. Having considered the Defendants' motion and supporting declarations and applying the relevant standard, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal the documents, and citations thereto. To the extent the SAC, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and the Plaintiff's Opposition include direct quotations from or references to substantive provisions of documents containing proprietary business information, the Court grants the motions to partially seal the documents proposed in the redacted versions filed. The exhibits attached in support of the Motion to Dismiss also contain sensitive, competitive business information that the parties have agreed would remain confidential. For these reasons, the Court grants the motions to file these exhibits fully under seal. The Defendants seek judicial notice of nine exhibits: excerpts of UserTesting's Proxy and Supplemental Proxy Statement (Exs. 1 and 2); UserTesting's quarterly and full year earnings release on February 28, 2022 (Ex. 3), quarterly earnings release on May 4, 2022 (Ex. 4), on Aug. 4, 2022 (Ex. 5), and on Oct. 27, 2022 (Ex. 6), filed with the SEC on the respective dates; and reports and presentations shared with UserTesting's Board of Directors and referred to by the Plaintiffs in the FAC (Exs. 7, 8, and 9). These are the same exhibits for which the Defendants previously sought judicial notice, which the Court granted. As before, Dickerson does not object to the Defendants' request, but argues that specific factual assertions within the documents should not be accepted as true when they conflict with the SAC. Thus, the Court again takes judicial notice of the documents but does not assume the truth of any disputed facts. Defendants Andy MacMillan and UserTesting, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") move to dismiss Plaintiff Brenna Dickerson's SAC for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). The Defendants move to dismiss the SAC, arguing Dickerson has failed to state a claim under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act. Dickerson bring claims premised on two statements, Statement One and Statement Two. The Court previously found Statement Two was protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor and consequently dismissed the claim based on it. Judge Martinez-Olguin opines that Dickerson's amendment of the complaint does not warrant a different outcome. Dickerson's argument that Statement Two is not a forward-looking statement is her only argument that the statement is not protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor. She does not contest that it is accompanied by meaningfully cautionary statements, as the Court previously concluded. Dickerson also does not argue the statements were made with knowledge of falsity. The Court, thus, dismisses the Section 14(a) claim based on Statement Two. The Court finds Dickerson has again failed to show the required mental state, and need not reach the final requirement -- loss causation -- in order to determine that the Section 14(a) claim predicated on Statement One must be dismissed. Because Dickerson has failed to allege a Section 14(a) claim, the Section 20(a) claim also fails. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Section 20(a) claim. For these reasons, the Court grants the pending administrative motions to seal, and grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC. Judge Martinez-Olguin points out that Dickerson has had an opportunity to cure the defects of the first amended complaint but failed to do so. She asks that if the Court grant Defendants' motion, it grant her leave to amend. However, she provides no reason why amendment would not be futile, nor does she indicate what additional facts she could aver. Thus, dismissal of the SAC is with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2rn4fevu from PacerMonitor.com. VALVE CORP: Court Request Supplement Briefing in Abbruzzese Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington requests supplemental briefing addressing jurisdictional and procedural issues in the case captioned as VALVE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS ABBRUZZESE et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-1717-JNW (W.D. Wash.). On Oct. 18, 2024, Valve Corporation filed a Petition to Enjoin Arbitrations against 624 individual respondents who were pursuing arbitration claims against Valve. The Petition seeks to enjoin these ongoing arbitrations based on Valve's recent amendment of its Steam Subscriber Agreement ("SSA"). This case presents a complex procedural posture because of the many respondents and the nature of Valve's initial filing. Valve is the defendant in In re Valve Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00563 (W.D. Wash.), a consolidated class action alleging antitrust violations regarding its Steam platform. In 2021, when Valve moved to compel arbitration of the consumer claims in that action, the Honorable John C. Coughenour ordered arbitration under the then-existing SSA. After at least one arbitrator determined that the SSA's arbitration provision was unenforceable, Valve amended the agreement to replace the mandatory arbitration provision with a mandatory litigation provision. Valve now alleges that all Respondents have agreed to the current SSA, which provides that all disputes, including pending ones, must proceed in court rather than arbitration. Valve invokes jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651(a), and Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 4. The Court noted that Valve's tactical decision to name 624 individual respondents would have created a tricky procedural path for the early stages of this case, but Valve's filing and refiling of motions, renoting the petition, piecemeal withdrawals, and service issues have created needless complications. At the time, the Court construed Valve's Petition as a complaint, with the accompanying Memorandum as a separate motion seeking injunctive relief. The jurisdictional question is intertwined with the procedural posture of this case. the Court finds it necessary to reconsider that characterization and seeks additional briefing on the matter. Given these complexities, the Court request supplemental briefing about whether it has subject matter jurisdiction and whether Valve properly invoked the Court's authority through its chosen procedural vehicle -- a Rule 4 petition rather than a civil complaint. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xa2YGU from PacerMonitor.com. VENTURE GLOBAL: FirstFire Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Venture Global, Inc., Michael Sabel, Jonathan Thayer, Robert Pender, Sarah Blake, Sari Granat, Andrew Orekar, Thomas J. Reid, Jimmy Staton, Roderick Christie, Goldman Sachs & Co LLC, J.P Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00633 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04642-PAE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commoditie for Securities Violation. Venture Global LNG, Inc. -- https://ventureglobal.com/ -- operates as a producer of liquefied natural gas pipelines.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Crandall Reilly, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG C. REILLY 111 Oronoco St. Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 549-5354 Fax: (703) 549-2604 The Defendant is represented by: Corey Anne Calabrese, Esq. Jason Craig Hegt, Esq. Jason C. Hegt, Esq. Jeff G. Hammel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 906-1200 Email: corey.calabrese@lw.com jason.hegt@lw.com jeff.hammel@lw.com - and - Katherine A. Sawyer, Esq. Stephen Paul Barry, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP (DC-NA) 555 11th St NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-2200 Fax: (202) 637-2201 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Bid to File Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to file under seal certain exhibits in the case captioned as Maureen Dempsey, Heinz E. Schlenkermann, Chris Shelton, and Diana Vargas, individually, and as representatives of plan participants and plan beneficiaries of the Verizon Management Pension Plan and the Verizon Pension Plan for Associates, Plaintiffs, v. Verizon Communications Inc.; Verizon Employee Benefits Committee, as Plan Administrator; Verizon California Inc., as Plan Sponsor of the Verizon Pension Plan for Associates; Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc., as Plan Sponsor of the Verizon Management Pension Plan; and State Street Global Advisors Trust Co., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10004-AKH (S.D.N.Y.). Upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Employee Benefits Committee, Verizon California Inc., and Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc.'s Motion to File Documents Under Seal and all other pleadings and proceedings in the Action, the Verizon Defendants, by and through their counsel, will move the Court at the United States Courthouse for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, on a date and time to be determined by the Court, for an Order directing that Exhibits B, C, and D included with the Verizon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint be filed and maintained under seal. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1IUi9r from PacerMonitor.com. VESTIS CORP: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Vestis Corporation (NYSE:VSTS) securities between May 2, 2024 and May 6, 2025. Vestis is a North American company that provides uniform rentals and workplace supplies across the U.S. and Canada. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Vestis Corporation (VSTS) Misled Investors regarding Customer Growth According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose to investors that Vestis would be unable to execute on planned strategic initiatives to drive purported improvements to the customer experience and its onboarding efforts in order to drive new customer growth, increased customer retention, and increased revenue from existing customers. The complaint alleges that these statements caused stockholders to purchase Vestis' securities at artificially inflated prices. According to the complaint, on May 7, 2025, Vestis announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2025, withdrew its revenue and growth guidance for the full fiscal year 2025, and provided guidance for the third quarter of fiscal 2025 that fell significantly below market expectations. The Company attributed its poor results partially to "lost business in excess of new business," but primarily on "lower adds over stops, which is how we describe volume changes with our existing customers." The Company attributed its decision to pull full-year guidance and provide disappointing third quarter targets to the "increasingly uncertain macro environment." On this news, the price of Vestis' common stock fell from a closing market price of $8.71 per share on May 6, 2025, to $5.44 per share on May 7, 2025, a decline of about 37.54% in the span of just a single day. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Vestis Corporation. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file a motion for lead plaintiff by August 8, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] VILLAGE CONCEPTS: Quintanilla Files Class Suit in Wash. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Village Concepts, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as ROBERT QUINTANILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VILLAGE CONCEPTS, LLC; FAIRWOOD OPERATIONS LLC; STUART BROWN; PETER JORGENSEN II; PETER JORGENSEN; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 25-2-08568-1 (Wash. Super., Pierce Cty., May 14, 2025). Village Concepts, LLC is a provider of consulting and professional development services based in Auburn, Washington. Fairwood Operations LLC is a provider of operational services to businesses based in Auburn, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com VIRGINIA: $1.6-Mil. Settlement in Puryear v. Dotson Has Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, issued a Final Judgment and Order approving the $1,590,018 settlement in the lawsuit titled LESLIE PURYEAR, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. CHADWICK DOTSON, in his individual capacity, HAROLD CLARKE, in his individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00479-REP (E.D. Va.). The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement, certification of settlement class, approval of attorney fee award, and approval of service award ("the motion"). The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed Settlement Class, and the Defendants have entered into the Amended Settlement Agreement {the "Agreement" or "Settlement Agreement"), that settles the litigation. On Jan. 28, 2025, the Court held a Hearing to consider the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of proposed Class action settlement, provisional certification of settlement Class, and approval of notice {"the preliminary approval motion"). On Jan. 29, 2025, the Court granted the preliminary approval motion. Pursuant to the order for notice and hearing, the Court conducted a final approval and Fairness Hearing on May 19, 2025. The Court finds that, for purposes of the agreement, the requirements for a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been satisfied. For purposes of resolution of claims for monetary relief, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finally certifies the Civil Acton, for purposes of settlement, as a class action on behalf of the following Class: any individual in custody of VDOC as of July 1, 2022, serving a sentence for an inchoate crime associated with robbery or carjacking; who was not awarded expanded ESCs on those inchoate offenses under Virginia Code Section 53.1-202. 3 (B), as amended; who was released from VDOC custody on or before Nov. 30, 2023; and who would have been released earlier than they were had they been awarded expanded ESCs as of July 1, 2022. "Class Member" is limited to those individuals, who were excluded from earning expanded ESCs solely because of an inchoate robbery and/or carjacking offense. The Plaintiff's Counsel, Relman Colfax PLLC, and Plaintiff Leslie Puryear are appointed to represent the Class. The Parties have verified that no opt outs were filed by any Class Member by the opt-out deadline set by the Court. Two Class Members objected to the Settlement. One of those objections was withdrawn after filing. The second objection, filed by Class Member Gauzza, objected to the reasonableness of the amount awarded to the Class Members, to the reasonableness of the attorneys' fee award, and to the fact that the Defendants did not apologize for the alleged conduct. The Court considered and overruled the objection at the May 19, 2025, Fairness Hearing after finding that (1) the amount awarded to each class member was reasonable based on their time incarcerated, their earning potential post-incarceration, and compared to class settlement awards garnered by other classes in similarly situated cases; (2) the attorneys' fee award of $400,000.00 (or an approximately 25% contingency fee) was reasonable based on the competency, diligence, and effort exerted by the Plaintiff's Counsel on behalf of the Class in this action; and (3) the Defendants need not apologize or admit wrongdoing, as is common in settlement agreements. The Defendants will pay, or cause to be paid, $1,590,018, constituting the Settlement Fund into the Escrow Account. The Settlement Administrator will distribute the Settlement Fund, as set out in the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3x6ebtsv from PacerMonitor.com. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Windsor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA LOS ANGELES. The case is styled as Whisper N. Windsor, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA LOS ANGELES, Case No. 25STCV16053 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Volunteers of America -- https://voala.org/ -- offers support and a wide variety of educational and empowerment services as well as scholarships.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com VROOM INC: Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------- Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint in the case captioned IN RE: VROOM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-02477-PGG (S.D.N.Y.). On March 19, 2025, the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint. The Court also provided until April 14, 2025 for Plaintiff to move to amend. That deadline has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed any motion to amend. Accordingly, the Court enters this final judgment of dismissal, this case is dismissed consistent with the dismissal order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1IUi9r from PacerMonitor.com. WALASHEK INDUSTRIAL: Court Won't Stay Murgas Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denies a joint stipulation and motion for an order to stay the case captioned as KEVIN MURGAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WALASHEK INDUSTRIAL & MARINE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-00263-JLB (S.D. Cal.) and all claims and discovery pending private mediation. The Court vacates the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and related deadlines. The Court sua sponte amends the Scheduling Order as follows: Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings must be filed by June 13, 2025. All discovery that relates to class certification must be completed by all parties by Nov. 12, 2025. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1.a. Plaintiff's class certification motion and motion for preliminary certification of the collective action must be filed by Dec. 9, 2025. The Court defers issuing the remainder of the pretrial schedule until it has ruled on the motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dojo3A from PacerMonitor.com. WALMART INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss McLean Product Recall Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted Walmart, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY McLEAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS V. WALMART, INC., DEFENDANT, CASE NO. 5:24-CV-5189 (W.D. Ark.) based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The case is dismissed without prejudice. This case arises out of Walmart's recall of its house-brand apple juice because the juice contained inorganic arsenic in amounts that exceeded the action level established by the Food and Drug Administration. On Aug. 15, 2024, Walmart recalled 9,535 cases of Great Value apple juice after testing revealed that some of the juice contained 13.2 ppb inorganic arsenic. McLean alleges that he purchased the recalled juice without knowledge of its arsenic content and brings this purported class action on behalf of himself and all other U.S. purchasers. McLean does not allege that he has suffered any adverse health effects as a result of consuming the juice. McLean seeks both damages and injunctive relief. Walmart argues that McLean's claims are moot and that he lacks standing because Walmart voluntarily recalled the juice and offered a full refund before this case was filed. With respect to damages, Walmart argues that it has already offered a complete remedy to McLean via its purchase-price refund, so any economic injury McLean has suffered is traceable only to his own failure to take advantage of that refund, not to Walmart's conduct. It also points out that McLean has not alleged that he experienced any other harm -- such as adverse health effects -- for which he could recover damages beyond the purchase price of the juice. McLean does not deny that Walmart offered him, and he could take advantage of, a full refund. Instead, he argues that a refund of the purchase price would not compensate him for "the temporary deprivation and lost time value of money" spent on the juice, which, he contends, constitutes an Article III injury. In this case, the Court finds Walmart's position more persuasive. Walmart offered McLean an adequate remedy before he filed suit, and McLean has not alleged that the refund program is somehow inaccessible. Walmart points out that McLean has not even identified when he purchased the recalled juice, so the Court does not know how much time elapsed between his purchase and Walmart's refund offer. The Court finds that the lost time value -- for some unidentified period -- of the purchase price of a defective product is, on its own, too conjectural and hypothetical to establish an Article III injury. Walmart also contests McLean's standing to seek an injunction. McLean argues that he and the class have no way to know that the juice or any other products under the "Great Value" brand are accurate or safe to consume as they were deceived once before. McLean's fool-me-once claim for injunctive relief is based on exactly the kind of speculative future harm that courts routinely find insufficient to establish standing. McLean has not shown that he is likely to be harmed by Great Value products in the future, let alone that such harm is imminent, the Court finds. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TnXtCY from PacerMonitor.com. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Costa Loses Bid for Reargument of March 21 Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument in the lawsuit styled STACY COSTA, et al, Plaintiffs v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00188-MN (D. Del.). Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument of the Court's March 21, 2025 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant Whirlpool Corporation's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") for failure to state a claim ("the March 21 Order"). The Plaintiffs moved for reargument on April 4, 2025. The Defendants filed their answering brief on April 21 and the Plaintiffs replied on April 24. In the March 21 Order, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for, among other things, violations of the Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, and Tennessee state consumer statutes. The Plaintiffs now challenge those dismissals. According to the Plaintiffs, the Court overlooked the correct legal standards for omission claims and dismissed these claims on inapplicable grounds. The thrust of the Plaintiffs' motion is that the Court did not address whether Whirlpool made a material omission in the March 21 Order. But the March 21 Order did just that: it found that the Plaintiffs fail to allege a misstatement, omission, or duty to disclose, Judge Noreika opines. The Court explained that the Plaintiffs failed to allege either that Whirlpool made a material omission or had a duty to disclose, because the Complaint did not plausibly plead that (1) Whirlpool's product testing showed a defect; (2) Whirlpool had exclusive or superior knowledge of the alleged defect; (3) the alleged defect was material; or (4) that Whirlpool concealed the alleged defect. The Plaintiffs contend that the Court's implied warranty of merchantability analysis nonetheless establishes a material defect that was omitted. They argue that a defect that renders the refrigerator unfit for ordinary use is clearly important to a reasonable consumer. But a breach of warranty claim is an inapt tool with which to conduct the omission calculus, Judge Noreika opines, citing Saint-Gobain Indus. Ceramics Inc. v. Wellons, Inc., 246 F.3d 64, 73 (1st Cir. 2001). Quite the opposite, Judge Noreika explains, the purpose of a warranty is to insure the customer against all manner of defects, ranging from the possible to the unknown. Accepting the Plaintiffs' argument to the contrary would effectively subject every consumer goods manufacturer to fraud liability for failing to disclose any one of the manifold "defects in materials or workmanship" that could befall a product. And it would turn the molehill of the implied warranty doctrine into a veritable mountain. Even setting all that aside, Judge Noreika points out, the Plaintiffs still cannot get around the fact that the alleged defect was not omitted, concealed, or borne out by Whirlpool's testing. Instead, it was covered by the Limited Warranty, and, at least for the Named Plaintiffs, the defect took time to manifest. It, therefore, cannot serve as the basis of a material omission claim. In sum, Judge Noreika says, to repeat the March 21 Order's holding, the "Plaintiffs fail to allege a misstatement, omission, or duty to disclose." The Plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument is, therefore, denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3nm9hjck from PacerMonitor.com. Scott M. Tucker -- scotttucker@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP, in Wilmington, DE; Timothy N. Mathew -- tnm@chimicles.com -- Zachary P. Beatty -- zpb@chimicles.com -- Alex M. Kashurba -- amk@chimicles.com -- Marissa N. Pembroke -- mnp@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP, in Haverford, PA; Peter Bradford deLeeuw -- brad@deleeuwlaw.com -- DELEEUW LAW LLC, in Wilmington, DE; Daniel C. Levin -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- Nicholas J. Elia -- NElia@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, in Philadelphia, PA; D. Aaron Rihn -- drihn@peircelaw.com -- Sara Watkins -- swatkins@peircelaw.com -- ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, in Pittsburgh, PA; Nicholas A. Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- Jason S. Rathod -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP, in Washington, D.C., Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Bartholomew J. Dalton -- bdalton@dalton.law -- Michael C. Dalton -- mdalton@dalton.law -- DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A., in Wilmington, DE; Andrew M. Unthank -- unthank@wtotrial.com -- Jennifer Simon -- simon@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP, in Denver, CO, Attorneys for the Defendant. WW INTERNATIONAL: Court Stays Giorgio Lawsuit Due to Bankruptcy --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ronnie Abram of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)(1) applies to Defendant WW International, Inc. in the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON GIORGIO, ASHLEY RODRIGUEZ, JENNIFER TORRES, NANCY OWEN, ANTOINETTE WACHTL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WW INTERNATIONAL, INC., WW.COM, LLC WEEKEND HEALTH OF TEXAS, PA, WEEKEND HEALTH OF NEW JERSEY P.C., WEEKEND HEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C., AND BRANTLEY T. JOLLY, M.D., PROF. CORP., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-02944-RA (S.D.N.Y.). On April 9, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Defendants, alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and state laws, as well as common law claims. On May 9, 2025, Defendants notified the Court that WW International, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates had commenced a Chapter 11 action in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dEiQWk from PacerMonitor.com. XTO ENERGY: Wins Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions in Kriley Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted XTO Energy Inc.'s motion to exclude certain legal opinions by plaintiffs' expert John Burritt McArthur regarding class certification in the case captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. XTO ENERGY INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CBB (W.D. Pa.) under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Insofar as the expert presents legal opinions, his reports will be disregarded in any recommendation on the motion for class certification. This putative class action was initiated by Plaintiffs, a group of individuals who are leaseholders of oil and gas leases, against XTO alleging the defendant breached their leases when it deducted unreasonable and excessive post-production costs from their royalty payments. XTO argues that portions of McArthur's reports should be stricken because McArthur improperly offers legal conclusions advocating for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Plaintiffs do not dispute that McArthur's reports contain some legal conclusions (and indicate they do not intend to offer that testimony as an expert opinion) but maintains the reports also contain testimony based on industry standard in the oil and gas field. The Court finds McArthur's reports highlighted by XTO largely offer legal opinions about whether Plaintiffs' proposed class should be certified under the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 factors and will not be considered in the forthcoming recommendation on the motion for class certification. However, to the extent McArthur's expert reports contain opinions based on standards, customs and practices of the oil and gas industry, the Court will consider those opinions where relevant. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U51WkC from PacerMonitor.com. YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Maglione Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC MAGLIONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00821-SFR (D. Conn., May 23, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and other private information in a data breach of Defendant's network environment that occurred on March 8, 2025. The Defendant confirmed that Plaintiff's private information, including potential name, date of birth, address, telephone number, email address, race or ethnicity, Social Security number, and/or medical record number, was stolen on March 8, 2025 in connection with the data breach, but Defendant did not notify Plaintiff until April 14, 2025, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek damages and injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant for injuries that have been and will be sustained as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to maintain Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information under industry standards and for Defendant's failure to provide notice of the data breach to Plaintiff and Class Members until well after its initial occurrence. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of Class Members, asserts these claims against the Defendant: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) unjust enrichment, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty, and (v) declaratory judgment/injunctive relief. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class Members, seeks damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. Yale New Haven Health System is a nonprofit healthcare system headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Blaine Finley, Esq. FINLEY PLLC 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (281) 723-7904 E-mail: bfinley@finley-pllc.com - and - Michele S. Carino, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC 881 Lake Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Telephone: (203) 622-6001 E-mail: mcarino@grwlegal.com ZOETIS INC: Stephens Suit Removed to D. Nevada ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Stephens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZOETIS, INC.; and DOES I-XX, inclusive, Case No. A-25-917285-C was removed from the District Court for Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on June 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00989. The Plaintiff alleges that Librela causes adverse effects, including, "lethargy, reduced appetite, behavior changes, weakness, urinary incontinence, worsening osteoarthritis symptoms, and death (the "Adverse Effects")." The Plaintiff brings one claim for strict liability (Count I) and one claim for negligence (Count II), based on Defendant's alleged failure to warn of potential adverse reactions, and possibly based on Librela's design.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Chad R. Fears, Esq. Brody R. Wight, Esq. Hayley E. LaMorte, Esq. EVANS FEARS & SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS LLP 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Phone: 702-805-0290 Email: cfears@efsmmlaw.com bwight@efsmmlaw.com hlamorte@efsmmlaw.com - and - Thomas J. Sullivan, Esq. Joseph H. Blum, Esq. Kevin B. Dulaney, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. Two Commerce Square 2001 Market St., Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-278-2555 Email: tsullivan@shb.com jblum@shb.com kdulaney@shb.com ZULILY LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Smith, et al. WARN Act Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned as JITTANIA SMITH, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. ZULILY, LLC, et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 24-cv-01480-KKE (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiffs formerly worked primarily remotely for Defendant Zulily, LLC, from their homes in Washington state and Ohio. In fall 2023, after Defendant Regent, L.P., purchased Zulily, Defendants terminated the employment of all its employees, including Plaintiffs. Zulily provided 60-day termination notices, or pay in lieu of notice, under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 ("WARN Act") only to employees who worked in person at Zulily's headquarters in Seattle or at fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada. Plaintiffs contend that they were also entitled to 60-day WARN Act notification or pay as well. They filed this putative class action on behalf of a class of former Zulily employees who were terminated when Zulily's headquarters and fulfillment centers were permanently closed and who did not receive 60 days' notice or pay/benefits in lieu of notice. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' operative complaint, contending that Plaintiffs cannot plead a claim for violation of the WARN Act because it does not apply to Plaintiffs, who worked primarily from home and therefore did not work at a site with more than 50 employees. They also argue that Plaintiffs' state-law wage claims based on Defendants' failure to pay WARN Act damages in lieu of notice also fail because WARN Act damages are not "wages" owed under applicable wage statutes. The Court finds that Defendants have raised arguments that question the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, but they have not shown that the claims fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants have not cited authority persuading the Court that its merits arguments should be resolved now, and have not cited binding authority indicating that Plaintiffs categorically cannot, as a matter of law, assert a claim for a WARN Act violation as remote workers when the allegations of the complaint are accepted as true. Accordingly, the Court will not find Plaintiffs' WARN Act claims to be deficient as a matter of law. The claims may ultimately fail on their merits, in accordance with arguments made and cases cited by Defendants in their briefing, but those arguments should not be resolved at this stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs' complaint lists wage claims under Washington and Ohio law, based on Defendants' failure to pay WARN Act wages in lieu of notice. Defendants request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Washington wage claims because: (1) the claims are derivative of the WARN Act claims, which should be dismissed; (2) Plaintiffs' state law wage claims are preempted because the WARN Act remedies are the "exclusive remedies" for violation of the statute; and (3) Defendants are not "obligated" to pay WARN Act wages until they are found to have violated the WARN Act, and thus Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim for violation of the Wage Rebate Act that has not yet accrued. The Court rejects Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs' Washington claims are preempted by the WARN Act's statement that its remedies are the "exclusive remedies" for violations of the WARN Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 2104(b)) because this argument overlooks that the WARN Act explicitly provides that employees are not precluded from seeking other contractual or statutory rights and remedies available to them. Although Defendants contend that they have a bona fide dispute as to whether it is obligated to pay WARN Act damages to Plaintiffs, whether that dispute constitutes "willful" withholding for purposes of the Wage Rebate Act is a question of fact. If the WARN Act is ultimately found to apply to Plaintiffs, and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to damages under the WARN Act, such an award could justify a Wage Rebate Act claim for those unpaid amounts owed or withheld. Accordingly, because Defendants have not shown that Plaintiffs' Washington Wage Rebate Act claims fail as a matter of law, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss them. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' Ohio wage claims should be dismissed for the same reasons that the Washington claims should be dismissed. With respect to the Washington claims, that Plaintiffs' Ohio wage claims assume a violation of the WARN Act is not a reason to dismiss the wage claims now, because the Court has ruled that the WARN Act claims withstand Defendants' motion to dismiss. Likewise, the Court finds that although the WARN Act explains that its remedies are the exclusive remedies for violation of the WARN Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 2104(b)), the statute explicitly does not preclude an employee from seeking other contractual or statutory rights and remedies. Defendants also argue that WARN Act damages do not constitute wages "earned" for purposes of Ohio's Prompt Pay Act, although they acknowledge that "earned" is not defined in the Act. Plaintiffs have cited authority to support their contention that if they prevail on the merits of their WARN Act claims, WARN Act damages can constitute "wages" owed or withheld under state statutes. Defendants have provided no authority compelling the Court to assume, on a motion to dismiss, that such "wages" cannot, as a matter of law, be "earned" for purposes of Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pMEFaj from PacerMonitor.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 ***