250617.mbx

250617.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 17, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 120 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Harrison Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D. Ill. AKIMA GLOBAL: Court Stays Yeend Class Suit AMERICAN AVENUE: Kennedy Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA AMERICAN ECONOMY: Glasner Suit Seeks Class Certification AMERICAN USED: De Souza Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: $5.2MM Class Settlement Gets Initial OK ANNA JAQUES: Court OK's Bid to Appoint Interim Counsel ANOTHER BROKEN: Santana Seeks Conditional Cert of Server Collective ANTILLANA & METRO: Huerta Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Tossed APRO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Alleges ARIXA CAPITAL: Faces Cochrane Suit Over Alleged Data Breach BELFOR USA: Court Grants Preliminary Settlement Approval BETTERHELP INC: Seeks to Address Postponement of Fact Discovery BIG APPLE: Carvelli Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation BINANCE HOLDINGS: General Pretrial Management Entered in Raanan BRAD RAFFENSPERGER: NGP Seeks to Certify Defendant Class CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: James Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Refuses to Pay Hours Worked, Cantey Says CLASSPASS INC: Majidi-Ahy Sues Over Improper Reservation Fees CLEARY CAPITAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Espinosa Suit Alleges COOPER HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sica Alleges CORECON SOLUTIONS: Clifton Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Breaches CREDIT PLUS: Bids for Class Cert in Beal Amended to August 15 DANIELLE OUTLAW: Parties Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Bid DUKE ENERGY: Filing for Class Certification Extended to Dec. 4 ELON MUSK: Rasella Seeks to Certify Class EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT: Francisco Seeks Conditional Collective Cert. FARM CUT: Faces Medina Suit Over Alleged FLMA Violations FLEET QUEST: Bid for Class Certification in Scott Due July 7 FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Jones Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages FUERZA FOOD: Andujar Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA GEORGE WEISS: Class Settlement in Andrew-Berry Gets Initial Nod GRAHAM BRUWER: Ramus Must Amend Suit With Class Action Bid GREATBANC TRUST: Davalos Sues Over Employee Stock Ownership Plan GZ EMPIRE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Claude Alleges HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Bid to Exclude Evidence Partly OK'd HILCORP ENERGY: Colton Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Classes HONEST COMPANY: $27.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 28 HOYT ARCHERY: Santarlas Sues Over Archery Products' Monopoly IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT: Shields Balks at Unprotected Info IIK TRANSPORT: Settlement Objection Deadline Set for July 29 KANAAN COMMUNICATIONS: Fink Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA KERN VALLEY, CA: Summary Judgment Granted in Inmate's Suit LA TORE SPECIALTIES: Pasa Seeks Damages for FLSA Violations LEE ENTERPRISES: $9.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 10 LELAND DUDEK: LNP Bid for Class Cert. Granted in Part LEXISNEXIS RISK: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Deadlines LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fassina Suit Seeks to Certify Class MANAGED CARE: Kleinheksel et al. Sue Over Private Data Breach MANDYTODDCO INC: Walsh and Lucas Sue Over Illegal Pay Practices MARSHA MCLANE: Richards Seeks to Certify Class of Patients MEDICAL TRANSPORT: Sori Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Maadanian Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification MERCEDES-BENZ: Maadanian Seeks to File Class Docs Under Seal META PLATFORMS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 7, 2026 MOBILE MEDIC: Oliver Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Replies NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Discovery in Myers Due Sept. 15 NATIONAL TENANT: Clermont Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class NEW YORK, NY: Status Report in Aboubakar Class Suit Due June 30 NEW YORK, NY: Status Report in Brennan Class Suit Due June 30 NEW YORK, NY: Status Report in Capobianco Class Suit Due June 30 NIKE RETAIL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Jones Suit Due Sept. 8 NUSCALE POWER: Securities Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Lilien Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification OLIN CORPORATION: Court Stays Davis Suit Until Sept. 8 OPTAVIA LLC: Settlement Class in Alpert Gets Final Certification PEPGEN INC: Faces Karam Suit Over $5.55/Share Stock Price Drop PINK LILY: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users POMA CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chacon Suit Claims PRIMAL NUTRITION: Avocado Oil Contains Phthalates, James Alleges PRODRIVERS WEST: Seeks Denial of Cortes Bid for Class Certification QUALITY ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Solis Suit Says REDFIN CORP: Court Refuses to Lift Stay in Morano Suit REGULATORY DATACORP: Class Cert Filing in Hughes Due Jan. 7, 2026 SAFE AND SECURE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 7 SAFEGUARD PROTECTION: Chapotin Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices SALVAMEX OAXACA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says SAM'S WEST: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Stevenson SEKAI NIGHT: Johnson Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Sued Over Defective Pressure Cookers SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Bid to File Class Cert Response Due June 25 SOUTHERN VALLEY: Garcia-Ramos Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SOUTHSIDE WRECKER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rickett Alleges SUNRUN INC: Class Cert Bid in Lopresti Suit Due Sept. 10, 2026 SUNRUN INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 10, 2026 SWEET BASIL: Liu Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status TEXASCARSDIRECT.COM LTD: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims TRANS UNION: Christian Seeks Class Certification TRANS UNION: Christian Seeks To Seal Unredacted Class Cert Memo TRANS UNION: Christian Suit Seeks to Seal Unredacted Exhibit UNITED STATES: Hagans Seeks for Writ of Habeas Corpus US NURSING CORPORATION: Court Stays Rubel Case Pending Resolution VIASAT INC: Faces Brostin TCPA Class Suit in M.D. Pa. VITAL AMINE: Faces Blackett Suit Over Protein Supplement Labels WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: $1.013MM Class Settlement Gets Final Nod WALMART INC: Thurner Sues Over Mislabeled Diaper Rash Ointments WOLFE CONSTRUCTION: Perez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages XTO ENERGY: John McArthur's Opinions Excluded in Kriley Suit ********* 3M COMPANY: Harrison Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG HARRISON, ALEX ROSS, CODY CARTER, GREG WHALEN, JOHN HALM, LEVI MILLS, MANUEL CAMACHO, RUSSELL KOTA, TREVOR PALMER, TREVOR TULL, TYLER TEMPLETON, ALEXANDER MADDEN, DANIEL BOSSERT, DUSTIN GARNER, JENNIFER CASEY, STUART EPTING, and WILLIE HANKS, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, et al., Case No. 2025LA000545 (Filed May 1, 2025) was removed from the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on June 6, 2025. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and/or firefighter turnout gear (TOG) that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS”), including perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; 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.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; CB GARMENT, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE RESPIRATOR COMPANY LLC f/k/a MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC. d/b/a TENCATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS; SPRINGFIELD LLC; STEDFAST USA, INC.; VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP. 3M Company, formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, is a global science company known for its innovation and diverse range of products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven D. Davis, II, Esq. Eric W. Cracken, Esq. TORHOERMAN LAW LLC 210 S. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 E-mail: sdavis@thlawyer.com ecracken@thlawyer.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel I. Rottenberg, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 E-mail: drottenberg@mayerbrown.com AKIMA GLOBAL: Court Stays Yeend Class Suit ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALILA YEEND, BOUNNAM PHIMASONE, ELVIN MINAYA RODRIGUEZ, LISA LAPOINTE, and SHANTADEWIE RAHMEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01281-AMN-PJE (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne M. Nardacci entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to stay. The Court further orders that the Defendant's request for leave to file a reply, is denied as moot; and the Court further orders that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. The Court finds that the balance of interests weighs in favor of staying the proceedings pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal. The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendant, asserting claims pertaining to their civil immigration detention at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. Akima provides the people, equipment, and processes that safeguard federal buildings, military bases, and detention centers. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BI1qj8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allison Frick, Esq. Alanna G. Kaufman, Esq. Alyssa Isidoridy, Esq. KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP 18E, 48th Street, Suite 802 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 660-2332 E-mail: africk@kllf-law.com aisidoridy@kllf-law.com - and - Maureen Hussain, Esq. Cristina Brito, Esq. Olivia Post Rich, Esq. WORKER JUSTICE CENTER OF NEW YORK 9 Main Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 331-6615 E-mail: mhussain@wjcny.org cbrito@wjcny.org opostrich@wjcny.org The Defendant is represented by: Jessica L. Marrero, Esq. Amiel J. Provosty, Esq. Heather F. Crow, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM 1100 Poydras St., Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 524-4162 Facsimile: (504) 596-4114 E-mail: JLM@kullmanlaw.com AMERICAN AVENUE: Kennedy Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY and CLAIRE GARDULSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AVENUE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, SFR3 OPERATOR LLC, SFR3 PROPERTIES LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-04825 (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2025) seeks recover overtime compensation, minimum wages, other unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The collective action consists of current and former employees who worked for Defendants who in the three years preceding the filing of this suit were not paid minimum wages and/or overtime compensation at time and one half their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek in violation of the FLSA. The collective action includes, without limitation, any individual with the job title of leasing agent, leasing specialist, occupancy director, renewal agent, move-in coordinator, resident screening specialist, or any similar title who performed similar duties of the named Plaintiffs and who was not paid minimum wages and/or overtime compensation at time and one half their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, says the suit. Mr. Kennedy was employed by Defendants as a leasing agent from approximately May 2023 through October 2024.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rhonda H. Wills, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1776 Yorktown, Suite 570 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 528-4455 Facsimile: (713) 528-2047 E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com AMERICAN ECONOMY: Glasner Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY GLASNER, DWIGHT SEELEY, PAMELA SEELEY, ARIJ ALI, MALINA ALI, and THOMAS LARSEN, as trustee of THE LARSEN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 1:21-cv-11047-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class consisting of American Economy Insurance Company ("AEIC"), Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company ("LMPIC"), and Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana ("Safeco") policyholders to seek monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The PCRs seek certification of the following class, defined as: "All AEIC, LMPIC, and Safeco of Indiana personal-lines property insurance policyholders (or their lawful assignees) who made: (1) a structural damage claim for property located in the States at Issue; (2) for which Liberty accepted coverage and issued an actual cash value payment during the class period that was calculated by Liberty exclusively through Xactimate (TM) software or Symbility (TM) software; and (3) Liberty's own calculation of actual cash value resulted in a reduced actual cash value payment due to the "manipulation of estimating software," or which resulted in an eliminated actual cash value payment because the manipulation of estimating software caused the loss payment to drop below the applicable deductible." The class excludes any claims arising under labor depreciation permissive policy forms, defined as those forms and endorsements expressly addressing the subject matter of labor depreciation for actual cash value payments on structural damage claims and then permitting the "depreciation" of "labor" by using those same terms within the text of the policy form. The class also excludes any claims for which the applicable limits of insurance have been exhausted by the initial actual cash value payment. Finally, the class excludes any judicial officer presiding over this action and his/her judicial staff. The PCRs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as required by Rule 23(a)(4). The PCRs have no interests that conflict with those of the class. Further, they have retained competent counsel to prosecute the class claims. American offers auto, home, renters, condo, boat, car, motorcycle, recreational vehicle, and landlord protection insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PMlmJS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW LLC 100 S. Fifth Street, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 448-2600 E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com - and - Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 357-9700 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES 110 West Vine Street, Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law - and - J. Brandon Mcwherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: brandon@msb.law AMERICAN USED: De Souza Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- GUTTEMBERG DIAS DE SOUZA, LINDOMBERG DIAS DE SOUZA, MELVA MENDEZ, FRANK CRUZ, MATHEWS CARDEAL, and SANTIAGO TEJEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN USED AUTO PARTS, INC., NEW AMERICAN USED AUTO PARTS, INC., D&B AUTO BODY COLLISION, INC., ALEX ROSA, an individual, and WENDY DIAZ, an individual, Case No. 4:25-cv-40077 (D. Mass., June 9, 2025) seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' violations of the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act, the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. Accordingly, employees collectively worked for the Defendants for over twenty years and despite having routinely worked up to as many as 70 hours a week, they were never properly compensated for overtime during the entire course of their employment. Indeed, for all hours worked over 40, the Plaintiff Employees were only compensated for their flat normal rate of pay which varied per hour depending on their function and experience. The Proposed Collective is composed of current and former mechanics, laborers, drivers, and office staff who are and were employed by Defendants during the applicable statutory period. The Defendant provides domestic and foreign used, remanufactured, aftermarket and new OEM surplus auto parts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Olayiwola O. Oduyingbo, Esq. Ana Barros, Esq. ODU LAW FIRM, LLC 888 Reservoir Avenue, Floor 2 Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 209-2029 Facsimile: (401) 217-2299 E-mail: Odu@odulawfirm.com abarros@odulawfirm.com AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: $5.2MM Class Settlement Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered a memorandum approving the class settlement. The Court preliminarily approved the following Settlement Class: "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 Jan. 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 Plaintiffs also have demonstrated that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." The named Plaintiffs' interests align with those of other class members. The settlement agreement provides that each of the class representatives will receive a service award of $2,500 (for a total of $15,000). The Settlement Fund consists of a $5,260,842 monetary payment, after the applicable opt-out reduction. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AaUNYR at no extra charge.[CC] ANNA JAQUES: Court OK's Bid to Appoint Interim Counsel ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cabozzi v. Anna Jaques Hospital, Case No. 1:24-cv-10792 (D. Mass., Filed March 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs unopposed motion to appoint interim class leadership: -- The court grants the motion insofar as it seeks appointment of Interim Counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3), to represent the putative class to ensure the orderly prosecution of this action prior to any order from this court on class certification. -- The court finds Attorneys Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates, P.C., Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman, LLP, and Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC are experienced and knowledgeable counsel who have demonstrated that they will work together and are qualified to act as Interim Counsel on behalf of the putative class. -- The court denies the motion insofar as it seeks appointment of an Executive Committee and Interim Liaison Counsel. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Diversity-Contract Dispute. Anna Jaques Hospital is a 119-bed community hospital serving the North Shore, Merrimack Valley and Seacoast region.[CC] ANOTHER BROKEN: Santana Seeks Conditional Cert of Server Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD SANTANA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ANOTHER BROKEN EGG OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 25-cv-60580-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for conditional certification of collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b): "All Servers who worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks for the Defendant at Another Broken Egg locations in the state of Florida for the past three (3) years." The Defendant enacted a companywide policy of miscalculating the Servers’ federal overtime rate. Specifically, when a Server employed at an Another Broken Egg in State of Florida works more than 40 hours in a workweek, Defendant pays the Server overtime at 1.5 times the reduced hourly wage instead of 1.5 times the regular hourly rate. The Plaintiff has also identified other irregularities regarding the miscalculation of the Servers' federal overtime rates resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant owns and operates a chain of restaurants named Another Broken Egg throughout the state of Florida. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VpJALS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Minick, Esq. JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A. 169 E. Flagler St. Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 441-8909 E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com - and - Michael Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com ANTILLANA & METRO: Huerta Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO SANTIAGO HUERTA and CLEMENTINA DURAN, and MELVIN RECAREY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ANTILLANA & METRO SUPERMARKET, CORP., and ALRA CORP., and 639 GRAND ST. MEAT & PRODUCE CORP., and OSVALDO RODRIGUEZ, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-00002-RA-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement, annexed to the Maguire Decl. as Exhibit 1; (2) approving the proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action Settlement, attached to the Maguire Decl. as Exhibit 2, the proposed Claim Form and Release, attached to the Maguire Decl. as Exhibit 3, the proposed Reminder Postcard, attached to the Maguire Decl. at Exhibit 4, and approving the claims procedure detailed in the Settlement Agreement; (3) certifying, for settlement purposes only, the two overlapping settlement classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (4) appointing the Named Plaintiffs Fernando Santiago Huerta, Clementina Duran, and Melvin Recarey as the class representatives; (5) appointing Stevenson Marino LLP as Class Counsel; (6) appointing Martom Solutions, LLC as the Claims Administrator for the settlement; and (7) approving the Parties' proposed schedule for the filing of a motion for final approval, for Class Members to submit a Claim Form, opt out, or file objections to the proposed settlement, and schedule a Fairness Hearing. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5f0lii at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (212) 939-7229 E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSA NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; NIHLA OLSEM, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated; and ROES 1 through 100 inclusive, v. APARTMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-06829-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order denying the joint stipulation regarding class certification briefing schedule as follows: Oct. 1, 2026: Motion for Class Certification Oct. 15, 2026: Opposition to Motion for Class Certification Oct. 22, 2026: Reply in support of Motion for Class Certification Oct. 29, 2026: Hearing on Motion for Class Certification A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0SwdTh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq. Tyler J. Belong, Esq. Justin T. Carter, Esq. HOGUE & BELONG 3555 5th Ave., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 238-4720 Facsimile: (619) 238-5260 The Defendants are represented by: R. Ernest Montanari, Esq. Michelle C. Jackson, Esq. COLLINS + COLLINS LLP 2175 N. California Boulevard, Suite 835 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (510) 844-5100 Facsimile: (510) 844-5101 E-mail: emontanari@ccllp.law mjackson@ccllp.law APRO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- LAKESHA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APRO, LLC d/b/a UNITED PACIFIC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04994 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2025) is a class action against Apro for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former job applicants and employees' personally identifiable information from hackers. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. The potential for improper disclosure and theft of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Apro, and thus Apro was on notice that failing to take necessary steps to secure the Private Information left it vulnerable to an attack, says the suit. Apro, LLC, doing business as United Oil, owns and operates gas stations and convenience stores. The Company offers motor fuels, gasoline, lubricating oils, and petroleum products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com ARIXA CAPITAL: Faces Cochrane Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS COCHRANE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARIXA CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04740 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2025) arises from Defendant’s failure to protect its current and former employees’ highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant recently discovered it had lost control over its computer network and that on November 13, 2024, cybercriminals accessed and potentially downloaded certain files containing highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network. On or about December 27, 2024, Arixa Capital finally began notifying some class members about the data breach. The Defendant's deliberate failure to timely report the data breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their sensitive personal information. The Plaintiff now seeks on behalf of himself and the Class, monetary damages and injunctive relief including lifetime credit monitoring and ID theft monitoring. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. Arixa Capital Advisors, LLC is a private real estate lender and investment manager headquartered in Los Angeles, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croman@straussborrelli.com BELFOR USA: Court Grants Preliminary Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted preliminary approval of an amended settlement agreement in the case of Rodriguez v. Belfor USA Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-cv-02071-VKD, addressing claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the California Private Attorneys' General Act (PAGA), and various California labor laws. According to the settlement, the defendants agreed to pay a non-reverting gross settlement amount of $1,622,000, to be distributed among the employee categories, attorneys, the settlement administrator, and Richard Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez filed claims on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees against Belford USA Group, Inc., Belfor Environmental, Inc., Oakwood Construction and Restoration Services, Inc., and 1-800 Water Damage North America, LLC. The Court after reviewing the motion, supplemental briefing, and arguments presented at a hearing on May 6, 2025, found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, granting preliminary approval. Mr. Rodriguez, a former employee, brought claims against the defendants for violations of federal and California labor laws. The settlement agreement defined three groups: 1. a California class of 1,034 non-exempt employees in California from February 25, 2018, to the date of preliminary approval. 2. an FLSA collective of 4,349 non-exempt employees nationwide from February 25, 2019, to the same date. 3. A PAGA group of 697 California employees from March 8, 2021, to the approval date. The plaintiff alleged multiple violations of labor laws. For the California class, claims included unpaid overtime under California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198, unpaid minimum wages under Sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198, failure to provide meal and rest periods under Sections 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198, non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records under Sections 226(a), 1174(d), and 1198, untimely payment of wages upon termination under Sections 201 and 202, failure to timely pay wages during employment under Section 204, failure to provide reporting time pay under Section 1198 and California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 11160, Subdivision 5(B), unreimbursed business expenses under Section 2802, and unlawful and unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. For the FLSA collective, claims centered on failure to pay overtime and minimum wages at the regular rate of pay. The PAGA claims mirrored the California class claims, seeking civil penalties for the same violations. The Plaintiff argued that the settlement was fair and reasonable due to significant litigation risks. He identified challenges such as potential defenses that could undermine the merits of the claims and the ability to achieve class certification. Mr. Rodriguez's counsel provided the court with a detailed breakdown of the maximum possible damages for the California class, estimated at $8,029,967.33, but argued that a "realistic" exposure, considering a 6.25% to 25% probability of recovering maximum damages, was $1,158,271.78. The net settlement amount of $799,500 represented approximately 70% of this realistic exposure, which Mr. Rodriguez deemed adequate given the risks. He estimated an average recovery of $773.21 per California class member. The plaintiff also cited comparable wage and hour settlements to support the reasonableness of the proposed amount. For the FLSA collective, Mr. Rodriguez calculated a maximum exposure of $6,062,506.43 but, assuming a 14% opt-in rate, a realistic exposure of $848,750.90. The $250,000 FLSA settlement fund was 29% of this amount, which he argued was within the range approved by other courts. For the PAGA claims, Mr. Rodriguez estimated a maximum penalty of $19,937,700 but, applying a 6.25% to 12.5% recovery probability, a realistic exposure of $1,937,825. The $200,000 PAGA settlement, with $150,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and $50,000 to PAGA members, was presented as reasonable given defendants' good faith defenses and the lack of evidence of willful violations. The defendants did not oppose the motion for preliminary approval. According to the Court, they could have challenged the claims by arguing that their labor policies prohibited off-the-clock work, that employees were properly compensated, and that any off-the-clock work would require individualized inquiries, making class certification difficult. The defendants' potential defenses included assertions of good faith, which could reduce or eliminate liquidated damages under the FLSA and limit PAGA penalties. The Court noted that the defendants’ cooperation in providing policy manuals, timesheets, and earnings data supported the settlement negotiations, and their agreement to the non-reverting $1,622,000 settlement fund indicated a willingness to resolve the dispute without further litigation. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, conditionally certifying the California class, FLSA collective, and PAGA group for settlement purposes. The Court approved the gross settlement amount of $1,622,000 and its allocation, including $799,500 for the California class, $250,000 for the FLSA collective, $200,000 for PAGA claims, $300,000 for attorneys' fees, $30,000 for costs, $32,500 for settlement administration, and $10,000 for Mr. Rodriguez's incentive award. The Court approved the notices for the California class and FLSA collective, with modifications for Spanish translations, and directed their mailing by June 30, 2025. The Court appointed Mr. Rodriguez as class representative, Capstone Law APC as class counsel, and CPT Group, Inc. as settlement administrator. The Court set deadlines for the settlement process, including a final fairness hearing on October 7, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kKOSzo BETTERHELP INC: Seeks to Address Postponement of Fact Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc. (RE BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting requests administrative motion pursuant to l.r. 7-11 to request case management conference to address postponement of any additional fact discovery while class certification is being briefed and decided. To the extent the Plaintiffs claim that they seek such further discovery to support their claims on the merits (at best a dubious proposition in light of what they are seeking), any merits discovery should wait until after the Court rules on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which will likely impact the scope of any remaining discovery. In light of the Plaintiffs' aggressive attempts to seek further discovery in the midst of the class certification briefing schedule, BetterHelp requests a further Case Management Conference to seek the Court’s guidance regarding a staged, reasonable discovery schedule that avoids the unnecessary expenditure of resources. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on May 8, 2025, following more than one year of extensive discovery that Plaintiffs claimed was needed to support their class certification motion. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6xlPlg at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Livia M. Kiser, Esq. Jeffrey Hammer, Esq. Craig H. Bessenger, Esq. James A. Unger, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com jhammer@kslaw.com cbessenger@kslaw.com junger@kslaw.com BIG APPLE: Carvelli Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------- Joseph J. Carvelli, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Big Apple Pizza, of Stuart, Inc., and Joan Lino, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-80644-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2025), seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants Big Apple Pizza and Joan Lino employed Plaintiff Joseph J. Carvelli from approximately March 15, 2021, to approximately February 05, 2024, or 151 weeks. The Plaintiff worked a total of 72 hours weekly but was not paid for overtime hours. In addition, the Plaintiff was not able to take bona fide lunchtime periods throughout the course of his employment with the Defendants, says the suit. Big Apple Pizza is an Italian restaurant specializing in New York-style pizza. It has several restaurant locations in Port St. Lucie and Palm Beach County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BINANCE HOLDINGS: General Pretrial Management Entered in Raanan --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDITH RAANAN, et al., v. BINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00697-JGK-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a general pretrial management order including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Judge Moses will hold a conference on July 1, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, to discuss the status of jurisdictional discovery, the anticipated schedule within which such discovery will be completed, and whether and when a pretrial scheduling order should be entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In advance of the conference, no later than June 24, 2025, the parties must submit a joint status letter addressing these issues. On June 14, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). On Feb. 25, 2025, the district judge (i) denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, without prejudice to renewal following jurisdictional discovery; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Binance operates as a cryptocurrency exchange platform. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6OJvVG at no extra charge.[CC] BRAD RAFFENSPERGER: NGP Seeks to Certify Defendant Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEW GEORGIA PROJECT, et al., v. BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, in his official capacity as Georgia Secretary of State, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03412-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify a defendant class consisting of Georgia's 159 county boards of registrars, to be represented by the Gwinnett County Board of Registrations and Elections as the class representative as to Counts I, II, IV, VI. The Plaintiff Secure Families Initiative (SFI) additionally moves for identical class certification as to Counts VII, X, XI, and XII; and Georgia Conference of the NAACP, Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, and VoteRiders ("NAACP Plaintiffs") move for identical class certification as to Counts VIII and IX. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F8MpPo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Danielle Lang, Esq. Alice C. Huling, Esq. Valencia Richardson, Esq. Daniel S. Lenz, Esq. Rachel Appel, Esq. Lucas Della Ventura Esq. CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 1101 14th St NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-2200 Facsimile: (202) 736-2222 E-mail: ahuling@campaignlegalcenter.org dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org vrichardson@campaignlegalcenter.org dlenz@campaignlegalcenter.org rappel@campaignlegalcenter.org ldellaventura@campaignlegal.org - and - Charles K. Grant, Esq. Denmark J. Grant, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 1600 West End Avenue, Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 726-5600 Facsimile: (615) 726-0464 E-mail: cgrant@bakerdonelson.com dgrant@bakerdonelson.com - and - Keeda Haynes, Esq. FREE HEARTS 2013 25th Ave. N Nashville, TN 37208 Telephone: (615) 479-5530 E-mail: keeda@freeheartsorg.com - and - Katherine L. D'Ambrosio, Esq. Jennifer Virostko, Esq. Ben Watson, Esq. COUNCILL, GUNNEMANN & CHALLY LLC 75 14th Street, NE, Suite 2475 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 407-5250 E-mail: kdambrosio@cgc-law.com jvirostko@cgc-law.com bwatson@cgc-law.com - and - Caitlin May, Esq. Cory Isaacson, Esq. Akiva Freidlin, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF GEORGIA, INC. Atlanta, GA 30357 Telephone: (678) 310-3699 E-mail: cisaacson@acluga.org cmay@acluga.org afreidlin@acluga.org - and - Julie M. Houk, Esq. Marlin David Rollins-Boyd, Esq. Ryan Snow, Esq. Samantha Heyward, Esq. Jeremy Lewis, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 662-8600 Facsimile: (202) 783-0857 E-mail: jhouk@lawyerscommittee.org drollins-boyd@lawyerscommittee.org rsnow@lawyerscommittee.org sheyward@lawyerscommittee.org jlewis@lawyerscommittee.org - and - Neil A. Steiner, Esq. Mara Cusker Gonzalez, Esq. Biaunca S. Morris, Esq. Dechert LLP Three Bryant Park 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 698-3500 Facsimile: (212) 698-3599 E-mail: Neil.steiner@dechert.com Mara.cuskergonzalez@dechert.com Biaunca.morris@dechert.com - and - Lindsey B. Cohan, Esq. Dechert LLP 515 Congress Ave. STE 1400 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 394-3000 Facsimile: (512) 394-3001 E-mail: Lindsey.cohan@dechert.com CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: James Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER JAMES, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. THE CAMPBELL'S COMPANY, CAMPBELL SOUP SUPPLY COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08590 (D.N.J. June 9, 2025) seeks overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees have worked, or they were scheduled to work, 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s). During their employment with Campbell, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees were not paid for all overtime wages they earned because employees were not paid for all work time. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants at their facility in Napoleon, Ohio as an hourly, non-exempt employee from 2017 to May 2024. The Plaintiff primarily performed non-exempt duties for Defendants. Campbell is a food and drink manufacturer that produces soups, snacks, meals, and other food and drink products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Krysten Connon, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 30 Washington Ave, Suite D-3 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: kconnon@llrlaw.com ssb@llrlaw.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Refuses to Pay Hours Worked, Cantey Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE CANTEY, JAMES BATTLE, and TERRENCE BOSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04843 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2025) alleges that CEO systematically underpays employees, including the Plaintiffs, by refusing to pay them for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. As a result of CEO's unlawful procedures, it systematically underpays employees an hour or more of regular wages each week. And, under New York's "call-in pay" law, each employee is entitled to four hours of pay for each day they are required to attend the mandatory one-hour meeting. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs and class members did not record their own time. The Plaintiffs' supervisors logged Plaintiffs into work, often inaccurately, resulting in underpayment of owed wages, asserts the suit. CEO is an employment services organization that provides short-term paid transitional employment to those with criminal convictions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Noam Glick, Esq. GLICK LAW GROUP, PC 225 Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 382-3400 E-mail: noam@glicklawgroup.com - and - Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Esq. Alexander Granovsky, Esq. GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC 48 Wall Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 524-6001 E-mail: delson@g-s-law.com ag@g-s-law.com CLASSPASS INC: Majidi-Ahy Sues Over Improper Reservation Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- MONDONA MAJIDI-AHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLASSPASS, INC.; MINDBODY, INC.; VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05003 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2025) is a a class action challenging the Defendant's unlawful practice of imposing financial penalties on customers when they miss classes they had already paid for in full. According to the complaint, the Defendant operates a subscription fitness platform where users pay monthly fees for credits to book classes at partner studios. When users book a class, ClassPass immediately deducts their credits and treats the transaction as complete—subscribers who attend their booked classes pay nothing additional. Yet when subscribers miss classes due to illness, emergencies, or other unavoidable circumstances, ClassPass imposes additional "missed reservation fees" ranging from $12 to $65. These additional charges create a punitive fee structure where customers who miss classes pay more than those who attend and receive the full benefit of their subscription, says the suit. ClassPass, Inc. designs and develops application software. The Company provides membership program for fitness classes across multiple gyms, studios, salons, and spas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mickel M. Arias, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. Isaac Manoff, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 Email: mike@aswtlawyers.com arnold@aswtlawyers.com isaac@aswtlawyers.com CLEARY CAPITAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Espinosa Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa S. Espinosa, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Cleary Capital Enterprises Inc., and Patrick M. Cleary, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61041-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2025) seeks recover monetary damages for unpaid regular hours and overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants Cleary Capital and Patrick M. Cleary employed Plaintiff Espinosa as a non-exempt, full-time, hourly employee from approximately February 01, 2024, to January 8, 2025, or 49 weeks. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly, but she was not paid for every hour worked, and she was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law, says the suit. Cleary Capital is a property management and vacation rental company operating Airbnb's vacation properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com COOPER HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sica Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- RALPH SICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06658 (D.N.J., June 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including personally identifiable information and protected health information (together with PHI, "Private Information"). According to the complaint, 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 careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its patients' 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 to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, the suit added. The Cooper Health System, doing business as Cooper University Health Care, operates as a non-profit healthcare organization. The Organization offers cancer treatment, cardiology, trauma, women care, diabetes, allergy, asthma, and orthopedics services. Cooper University Health Care also conducts medical training programs for medical students, nurses, and healthcare professionals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com CORECON SOLUTIONS: Clifton Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph M. Clifton, Plaintiff v. Corecon Solutions LLC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00575 (M.D. Fla., May 26, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover from Defendant half-time overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Clifton as a lead construction worker from approximately March 01, 2021, to December 11, 2024, or 136 weeks. Within the relevant period of employment, the Plaintiff worked six days per week on an irregular schedule and with a minimum average of 78 hours weekly. However, the Plaintiff was compensated for all hours worked. In addition, the Plaintiff was not paid the required overtime rate for hours exceeding the standard legal threshold, says the suit. Based in Baker County, Florida, Corecon Solutions provides environmental compliance and stormwater management services for major construction and land development companies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com CREDIT PLUS: Bids for Class Cert in Beal Amended to August 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS J. BEAL, v. CREDIT PLUS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01462-MKC (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Costello entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. In the event all parties agree and so inform the Court, the Court will refer this case to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference. 2. The parties shall complete all discovery by Dec. 15, 2025. 3. Defendants shall serve expert reports regarding class certification, if any, on or before July 25, 2025. 4. The Plaintiff shall serve expert reports, if any, on or before Oct. 13, 2025. 5. The Defendants shall serve expert reports, if any, on or before Nov. 24, 2025. 6. Responsive or supplemental expert reports, if any, must be served on or before Dec. 8, 2025. 7. A party intending to offer lay witness opinion testimony must disclose the name of any witness who will offer such an opinion and a summary of each such opinion at the same time the expert reports are exchanged. 8. Should both parties wish to extend any discovery deadline without extending any other deadlines set forth in this Scheduling Order, the parties may agree to do so without seeking leave of the Court. 9. Motions regarding class certification, if any, shall be filed by Aug. 15, 2025. Responses shall be filed no later than Sept. 12, 2025. Replies in support of the motion, if any, shall be filed by Oct. 3, 2025. 10. Motions for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed by January 12, 2026. Responses shall be filed no later than February 9, 2026. Replies in support of motions for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed by March 2, 2026. Credit operates as a finance company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RNWwFj at no extra charge.[CC] DANIELLE OUTLAW: Parties Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLACCO, et al., v. OUTLAW, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04374 (E.D. Pa., Filed Aug. 21, 2024), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Kearney entered an order granting the Parties leave to move for class certification by no later than July 16, 2025, with responses due no later than July 30, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL).[CC] DUKE ENERGY: Filing for Class Certification Extended to Dec. 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MABLE v. DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00117 (N.D. Fla., Filed July 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge Robert L. Hinkle entered an order extending 26(a)(2) and class-certification deadlines The deadlines for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) disclosures are extended as requested in the motion. The deadline to move to certify a class is extended to Dec. 4, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Duke Energy is an American electric power and natural gas holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[CC] ELON MUSK: Rasella Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rasella v. Elon Musk, Case No. 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class pursuant to Rule 23: "All persons or entities who sold Twitter common stock and/or call options and/or purchased put options between March 25, 2022 and April 4, 2022, inclusive and were damaged thereby (the "Class")." Excluded from the Class are Defendants; officers and directors of the Defendant Excession LLC and Defendant Elon Musk Revocable Trust Dated July 22, 2003; Twitter, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who is or was an officer or director of Twitter during the Class Period; any entity in which the Defendants have a controlling interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded person or entity. The action arises from the scheme by Elon Musk and his righthand man Jared Birchall to buy Twitter stock at the cheapest price possible by hiding Musk's massive ownership stake and activist interest in Twitter. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kA4cTf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1104 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: KatieM@blbglaw.com EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT: Francisco Seeks Conditional Collective Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERLINDA FRANCISCO and JAVIER BRAVO, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION GROUP, INC., JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1–50, and DMITRIY BEREZOVSKY a/k/a DMITRY BEREZOVSKIY, Case No. 1:24-cv-03928-AT-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b). Exclusive Management is a management firm specializing in providing comprehensive solutions for social media and marketing. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0RG5XR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 W 24th St., 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 FARM CUT: Faces Medina Suit Over Alleged FLMA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Luis A. Medina and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Farm Cut, LLC, d/b/a Marjon Specialty Foods, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01330 (M.D. Fla., May 26, 2025) alleges the Defendant of violating the Family Medical Leave Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Medina as a nonexempt, full-time, hourly industrial mechanic from approximately November 01, 2022, to February 04, 2025, spanning over two years, or 118 weeks. On or about October 06, 2024, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident, which resulted in a fracture to his right leg. The Plaintiff informed his superiors about his condition in a timely manner, on or about October 7, 2024. However, the Defendant did not notify Plaintiff about his eligibility status and rights and responsibilities under the FMLA. Instead, as a direct result of Plaintiff's leave, Defendant fired Plaintiff on or about February 04, 2025, says the suit. Based in Florida, Farm Cut, LLC, d/b/a Marjon Specialty Foods is a producer, processor, and wholesale distributor of fresh produce items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com FLEET QUEST: Bid for Class Certification in Scott Due July 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYVON SCOTT, et al., v. FLEET QUEST LOGISTICS, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00770-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an order granting the parties joint status report as follows: The Plaintiffs shall file the motion for class certification no later than July 7, 2025. The Defendants' response to the motion shall be filed within the time allowed by court rule. The Court reserves on scheduling oral argument on the motion. Fleet is a transportation and logistics company, A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BjRj8F at no extra charge.[CC] FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Jones Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- IAN JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 9:25-cv-80715-AMC (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Beginning at least on Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendant sent or caused to be sent multiple telemarketing text messages and voicemails to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 0570. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shamis & Gentile, P.A. Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Christopher Berman, Esq. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com cberman@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com FUERZA FOOD: Andujar Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS MARINO ANDUJAR MATEO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LA FUERZA FOOD CORP. (d/b/a LA FUERZA FOOD CORP.), DIGNO CASTILLO, And FRANKLIN TEJEDA, Case No. 1:25-cv-04836 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to sweeping and mopping the floor, cleaning the bathroom, cleaning the deli, and stocking the fridge (non-tipped duties). Accordingly, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation, for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, asserts the suit. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 1386 Nelson Ave Bronx, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 GEORGE WEISS: Class Settlement in Andrew-Berry Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETH ANDREW-BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GEORGE A. WEISS and GWA, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00978-OAW (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Omar Williams entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Beth Andrew-Berry preliminarily is appointed as class representative for the purpose of this settlement. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC preliminarily is appointed as class counsel for the purpose of this settlement. Given this ruling, the motion to dismiss; the consent to Magistrate judge jurisdiction; and the motion for status conference are denied as moot. The final approval hearing shall be scheduled for 10 a.m. on Aug. 26, 2025, unless reset by the court to a different time and/or date. Any motion for final approval of the Agreement, with supporting argument, shall be filed on or before Aug. 4, 2025. Any application for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of costs and expenses, and service awards shall be filed on or before Aug. 4, 2025. The Plaintiff, a former employee of the corporate defendant, filed this putative class action on July 24, 2023, alleging that the Defendants had violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") in their administration of the company’s retirement benefit plan. More specifically, she accused Defendants of violating their fiduciary duties and engaging in prohibited transactions. The parties seek settlement for a class that includes "all participants and beneficiaries of the GWA, LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (formally known as the George Weiss Associates, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan) from July 24, 2017, to the Effective Date of Settlement (as that term is defined in the settlement agreement), excluding the Defendant George A. Weiss and any of his relatives, heirs, or trusts for which he and/or his family members are beneficiaries or trustees." A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JjyOqS at no extra charge.[CC] GRAHAM BRUWER: Ramus Must Amend Suit With Class Action Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge John P. Cronan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order in the case captioned as RAMUS v. BRUWER and METOYER, Defendants, Case No. 23 Civ. 1770 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y), concerning Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for diversion of trust assets under Article 3-A of the New York Lien Law. Defendants are officers of Bulson Management, LLC, a New York limited liability company, which is part of a bi-coastal construction business, doing business as "Bulson Building Contractors," with offices in New York City and Los Angeles. Graham Bruwer is the founder and sole member of Bulson. Gerard Metoyer is the Comptroller of Bulson. Joshua Ramus sued the Defendants after Bulson, as contractor, failed to complete Ramus' apartment project and failed to pay various subcontractors -- despite Plaintiff's timely payments. On March 17, 2025, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. On April 2, 2025, the Court held a conference with the parties to discuss whether Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action, for diversion of trust assets under Article 3-A of the New York Lien Law, must proceed on a representative basis and, if so, in what form. The parties subsequently filed letter briefs outlining their positions with respect to that issue. Because Plaintiff's cause of action for diversion of trust assets arises under Article 3-A of the Lien Law, that claim must proceed through a "representative action brought for the benefit of all beneficiaries of the trust." Courts have interpreted Section 77 of the Lien Law to preclude individual suits to enforce a trust. Since Plaintiff brought this action in federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the mechanism through which to bring such a representative action. To avoid dismissal of his Article 3-A claim, Plaintiff therefore "must either pursue this action as a class action under Rule 23 or join all beneficiaries in the case." Lien Law claims must be dismissed unless the plaintiff either joins all potential beneficiaries or seeks Rule 23 class treatment. Accordingly, the Court directed Plaintiff to either join all potential beneficiaries to the Article 3-A trust that is the subject of the Third Cause of Action, or plead class claims and seek class certification pursuant to Rule 23. The failure to do so will result in dismissal of the Third Cause of Action without prejudice. The Court granted Plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint and added that "If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his Article 3-A claim, the amended complaint must be filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all beneficiaries of the trust, and Plaintiff shall either join all potential beneficiaries or seek class certification under Rule 23". In addition, Plaintiff's amended complaint must plausibly allege diversity jurisdiction, including the citizenship of each party. Plaintiff's amended complaint may also replead Plaintiff's cause of action for fraud, provided that Plaintiff believes in good faith that he can address the deficiencies identified in the Court's March 17, 2025 Opinion and Order, as well as plead additional causes of action arising out of the parties' dispute if appropriate. The Court held that the Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint on or before June 20, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EFs66Q GREATBANC TRUST: Davalos Sues Over Employee Stock Ownership Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- OSE DAVALOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:25-at-00476 (E.D. Cal., June 9, 2025) is a civil enforcement action brought pursuant to Sections 502(a)(2) and 502 (a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, by the Plaintiff Davalos, on behalf of himself and other participants and beneficiaries in the Western Milling Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) arising out of the sale of the Plan's ownership interest in Kruse Western and associated consideration paid to Company insiders. The Western Milling ESOP was an employee pension benefit plan under ERISA that was established in 2015 to invest in Kruse Western after the Company became the parent company of Western Milling LLC. While the ESOP was at all times supposed to function for the benefit of employees of Western Milling, it was conceived of and effectively hijacked by Company insiders who used it to enrich themselves. In 2015, the ESOP purchased Kruse Western from Company insiders for greater than fair market value, which was financed through notes issued to those same Company insiders, while allowing many of them to retain managerial control over the Company and its business operations. The claims in this action relate to a subsequent transaction in 2022 (the 2022 ESOP Transaction), through which the Company insiders fleeced the ESOP once again. Pursuant to this multi-part integrated Transaction, the ESOP sold and returned its 2,000,000 in shares of Kruse Western back to the Company and Kruse Western Enterprises, LLC, which sold most of the Company's assets (including Western Milling) to Viserion Milling, LLC, and a large portion of the monies exchanged in the Transaction were funneled to the Company insiders. Specifically, in connection with the 2022 ESOP Transaction, the Company insiders' notes were immediately paid off and they received special "bonus" compensation. However, the ESOP and its employee-owners did not receive fair market value for their equity interest in the Company, which was worth much more than what was left for the ESOP after the Company insiders were paid off, says the suit. The Defendants include THE KRUSE WESTERN BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KEVIN KRUSE, THE KRUSE FAMILY TRUST, TONY CORREIA, THE TONY F. AND MARY A. CORREIA REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST, ROBERT BERCZYNSKI, AUBREY MICHAEL, CHAD PINTER, RONALD KRUSE, THE RONALD O. KRUSE FAMILY TRUST, LARRY LEITNER, HAL REED, MARK LA BOUNTY, THE LA BOUNTY FAMILY TRUST, BOB REEVES, KRUSE INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC., THE 2007 KNUDSEN FAMILY TRUST, THE JEFFREY AND KAREN FONTANELLA TRUST, JORDYN KRUSE, RYAN KRUSE, THE DOUGLAS T. KRUSE TRUST, THE DAVIS FAMILY TRUST, SECAP, THE KRUSE FEED AND SUPPLY, INC. PROFIT SHARING PLAN, THE LAMBERT FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, WARREN HUTCHINGS, DOREEN HUTCHINGS, SIDNEY EARP, RICHARD EARP, MARK KREBSBACH, NICKIE KREBSBACH, THE JOSEPH M. AND DEBRA L. GUENLEY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, THE HOLDSWORTH FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, DANIEL J. MARTIN, THE MONTE AND SUSAN MELLO TRUST, KRUSE WESTERN, INC., and KRUSE WESTERN ENTERPRISES, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Feinberg, Esq. Nina Wasow, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com nina@feinbergjackson.com - and - Michelle C. Yau, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com - and - Kai Richter, Esq. Jacob Schutz, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 400 South Fourth Street #401-27 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 807-1575 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: krichter@cohenmilstein.com jschutz@cohenmilstein.com GZ EMPIRE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Claude Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GZ EMPIRE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-07977 (D.N.J., June 6, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.sugarbearcandystore.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on Dec. 20, 2024, to access Defendant’s Website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant’s products, but encountered barriers that denied him full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase sweet treats. The Plaintiff's desire for this product was due to the fact that she wanted to find original sweets and candies with a taste she had not tried before. In her search, she wanted to find a store that provides novelty candies for sweets enthusiasts. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Bid to Exclude Evidence Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKI O'HAILPIN; NINA ARIZUMI; ROBERT ESPINOSA; ERWIN YOUNG; PUANANI BADIANG; SABRINA FRANKS; RONALD LUM; DAN SAIKI; BRANDEE AUKAI, v. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.; HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC. Case No. 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP (D. Haw.), the Hon. Judge Helen Gillmor entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' motion in limine No. 1 to exclude any evidence regarding the Defendants' review and decisions regarding accommodation requests by other employees, and -- granting in part the Defendants' motion in limine No. 2 to admit into evidence Hawaii Department of Health COVID-19 Data. The alleged administrative burden the testing program placed on the Hawaiian Defendants is relevant for their undue hardship defense. It does not open the door to allow the Plaintiffs to inquire as to the individual assessments of the other employees' accommodations requests or discuss the results of other employees' requests for accommodations. The Parties may reference the number of overall accommodations requests made by employees. The results and decision–making as to other employees’ accommodations requests, however, are not relevant. There is no relevance to the individualized assessments of other employees who are not before the jury. The Hawaiian Defendants' decisions as to other employees are not relevant to any of Plaintiffs’ causes of action. Other employees’ requests for accommodations are not relevant to the individualized accommodations determinations made in this case as to Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki. The trial is limited to Plaintiff Espinosa and Saiki and their requests for accommodations and to the Hawaiian Defendants’ undue hardship defense. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 To Admit Into Evidence Hawaii Department Of Health COVID-19 Data is granted, in part. Evidence in this case regarding COVID-19 is limited to the relevant timeline of the announcement of the vaccination policy in August 2021 through the denial of Plaintiffs’ reasonable accommodations requests in December 2021 and Plaintiff Espinosa’s placement on leave without pay status on January 5, 2022. Defendants' Exhibits 2278, 2018, 2021, and 2022 consisting of public records from the State of Hawaii Department of Health must be modified to the relevant timeline in this case. The Parties’ experts are also limited to the information that was available regarding COVID-19 between August 2021 through Jan. 5, 2022. The experts may not rely on information, studies, articles, or evidence that was published after January 5, 2022. The Plaintiffs claim that the Hawaiian Defendants failed to accommodate their religious beliefs in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hawaiian offers non-stop service to Hawaii from the U.S. mainland and international destinations. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bLE89c at no extra charge.[CC] HILCORP ENERGY: Colton Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG B. COLTON and CINDY H. COLTON, as Trustees of the GREGG B. COLTON TRUST, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, v. HILCORP ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, LP, Case No. 2:22-cv-00149-ABJ (D. Wyo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) provisionally certifying two Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) settlement classes; (2) preliminarily approving the parties' settlement; (3) appointing the Plaintiffs as the class representatives for the Settlement Classes; (4) appointing the Plaintiffs' attorneys, George Barton, Stacy Burrows, and Seth Jones, as the attorneys for the Settlement Classes; (5) approving the proposed notice of the class action settlement to be sent to the members of each settlement class; (6) establishing the deadline for members of the Settlement Classes to exclude themselves from the Settlement; (7) establishing the deadline for members of the Settlement Classes to submit objections to, or comments on, the Settlement; (8) establishing deadlines for the parties to file a motion for final approval of the Settlement, and for Class Counsel to file their requests for attorneys' fees, litigation expense reimbursements, and an incentive award to the Plaintiffs; and (9) establishing a time and date for the hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement, and to consider Class Counsel's requests for attorneys' fees, litigation expense reimbursements, and a case contribution award to the Plaintiffs. Hilcorp operates as an oil and natural gas producer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lBOJQd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. George A. Barton, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913)-563-6250 E-mail: george@bartonburrows.com stacy@bartonburrows.com - and - Kelly Shaw, Esq. Travis W. Koch, Esq. KOCH LAW, P.C. 121 W. Carlson Street, Suite 3 Cheyenne, WY 82009 E-mail: kshaw@kochlawpc.com tkoch@kochlawpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Lindsay A. Woznick, Esq. Amanda M. Good, Esq. CROWLEY FLECK PLLP 511 West 19th Street, Suite 100 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Telephone: (307) 426-4100 Facsimile: (307) 426-4099 E-mail: lwoznick@crowleyfleck.com mgood@crowleyfleck.com Gregg C. Laswell, Esq. HICKS THOMAS LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 547-9100 Facsimile: (713) 547-9150 E-mail: glaswell@hicks-thomas.com HONEST COMPANY: $27.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE THE HONEST COMPANY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 21-cv-07405-MCS-AS SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired The Honest Company, Inc. publicly traded common stock pursuant and traceable to the Offering Documents for Honest's initial public offering ("IPO") prior to August 19, 2021, or acquired ownership of a trading account, retirement account, or any other similar investment account or portfolio containing such stock. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that Court-appointed Class Representative Kathie Ng, and the other members of the certified Class, and defendants The Honest Company, Inc. ("Honest"), Nikolaos Vlahos, Kelly Kennedy, Jessica Warren, Katie Bayne, Scott Dahnke, Eric Liaw, Jeremy Liew, Avik Pramanik, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Jefferies LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Telsey Advisory Group LLC, C.L. King & Associates, Inc., Loop Capital Markets LLC, Penserra Securities LLC, Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc., Catterton Management Company L.L.C., L Catterton VIII, L.P., L Catterton VIII Offshore, L.P., Catterton Managing Partner VIII, L.L.C., C8 Management, L.L.C., and THC Shared Abacus, LP (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the class action (the "Action") and related claims in the amount of $27,500,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Mark C. Scarsi on July 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. (Pacific), at the First Street Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Courtroom 7C, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated March 11, 2025; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the settlement funds available for distribution to eligible Class Members (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (iv) approve Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application seeking attorneys' fees of no more than 30% of the Settlement Fund and Litigation Expenses of no more than $1,725,000, plus accrued interest. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing 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 CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Settlement Postcard, you may obtain copies of the Settlement Postcard, long-form Settlement Notice, and Claim Form by visiting the website for the case, www.TheHonestCompanySecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: In re The Honest Company, Inc. Sec. Litig. c/o Epiq P.O. Box 5619 Portland, OR 97228-5619 info@TheHonestCompanySecuritiesLitigation.com www.TheHonestCompanySecuritiesLitigation.com (888) 670-8722 Inquiries, other than requests for copies of notice documents or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel: Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than July 14, 2025. If you are a 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 and orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be provided to counsel and filed with the Court in accordance with the instructions in the Settlement Notice, such that they are received no later than July 7, 2025. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: June 4, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HOYT ARCHERY: Santarlas Sues Over Archery Products' Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH SANTARLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; JAY'S SPORTS, INC. d/b/a/ JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; NEUINTEL LLC d/b/a PRICESPIDER f/k/a ORIS INTELLIGENCE; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; TRACKSTREET, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00436 (D. Utah, May 30, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Archery Trade Association ("ATA") organized various meetings and programs for its members at which they discussed and agreed upon strategies to ensure the success of their anticompetitive plot, including sample MAP policies; best practices for MAP policies; desired retail price margins for the ATA's retailers; and how to work together to police non-complying retailers, including by jointly agreeing to restrict violating retailers' supply of Archery Products. The goal of Defendants' conspiracy was to artificially raise the retail price for Archery Products in the United States. This conspiracy was successful, and Plaintiff and the Class have paid supra-competitive retail prices as a result, says the suit. Hoyt Archery, Inc. manufactures and markets archery products. The Company offers target and hunting archery bows and equipment including recurves, arrow rest, custom grips, arrow quivers, archery sights, bow stabilizers, custom limbs, wrist sling, and other products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Email: jlichtman@lchb.com IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT: Shields Balks at Unprotected Info -------------------------------------------------------------- CHERYL SHIELDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; and IHEARTMEDIA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00599 (W. Tex., May 30, 2025) is a class action against iHeart for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated iHeart customers' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, passport or governmental identification numbers, financial account information, health information, and health insurance information (the "Private Information") from hackers. The Plaintiff alleges in complaint that iHeart and its employees failed to properly implement security practices with regard to the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. Had iHeart properly monitored its networks, it would have discovered the Breach sooner. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of iHeart's negligent conduct as the Private Information that iHeart collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties, says the suit. iHeartMedia + Entertainment, Inc. operates as a multimedia company. The Company owns and operates radio stations and also manages outdoor and indoor events. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com IIK TRANSPORT: Settlement Objection Deadline Set for July 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT GEORGE, v. IK TRANSPORT, INC., and IVAN KAZNIYENKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS A proposed settlement has been reached with IIK Transport, Inc. in a class action, brought on behalf of All individuals who worked in Illinois as delivery drivers for IIK between November 17, 2010 and March 30, 2023 and who were classified as independent contractors. This settlement is pending final Court approval. You may contact Class Counsel at the address below to request additional information or to see if you qualify to participate in this settlement. If you wish to object to the proposed settlement, you must file your written objection with Class Counsel at the address below as soon as possible, but no later than July 29, 2025. Hyun Ji is the Firm Class Action Administrator. He can be reached at: Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Fax: 617-994-5801 Email: claims@llrlaw.com KANAAN COMMUNICATIONS: Fink Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- ADDAM FINK, individually and for others similarly situated v. KANAAN COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00779 (W.D. Pa., June 9, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Kanaan. Fink and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But Kanaan does not pay them for all the hours they work. Instead, Kanaan requires Fink and the other Hourly Employees to work "off the clock" without pay. Specifically, Kanaan prohibits Fink and the other Hourly Employees from clocking in for their shifts until they arrive at their first assigned job site and Kanaan requires Fink and the other Hourly Employees to clock out when they leave their last assigned job site, says the suit. The putative FLSA collective of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly Kanaan employees who were subject to Kanaan’s ticket to ticket policy at any time during the past 3 years through final resolution of this action (FLSA Collective Members). The putative Pennsylvania class of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly Kanaan employees who worked in, or were based out of, Pennsylvania1 during the last 3 years through final resolution of this action (the Pennsylvania Class Members)." Kanaan touts that it "provides a wide range of services to the nation's largest telecommunications providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP TX Bar No. 24078444 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com ill@goodrichandgeist.com KERN VALLEY, CA: Summary Judgment Granted in Inmate's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted defendant Palomino's motion for summary judgment in Thomas v. Christian Pfeiffer, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01232-SAB (PC)(E.D. Cal.) and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The Court examined Defendant's motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff Michael Thomas proceeded pro se in this action against Defendant Palomino for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) during all relevant times in this case. The action proceeded against Defendant Palomino based on alleged interactions at the KVSP medical clinic between February 2019 and May 2019. On July 15, 2024, Palomino filed an answer to the operative complaint. On August 16, 2024, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. Defendant filed the instant exhaustion motion for summary judgment on December 16, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 10, 2025, and Defendant filed a reply on January 24, 2025. On January 6, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery and modify the scheduling order, which was granted on January 7, 2025. Plaintiff has four herniated lumbar discs, spondylosis, annular fissure, spinal stenosis, claudication, neural foraminal narrowing, and nerve impingement at the L5 nerve root. Plaintiff also has five bulging cervical discs, neural foraminal stenosis, and central canal narrowing. This causes Plaintiff to have chronic and acute pain and recurring episodes of debilitating spasms. The episodes occur with or without warning, with varying frequency, and last for varying durations from several minutes to several days. Since its onset in 1994, Plaintiff's deteriorating condition has been confirmed via six MRIs conducted between 2000 and 2021, showing progressive deterioration from one herniated lumbar disc to four herniated lumbar discs with multiple complications. From 2000 through 2015, CDCR treated Plaintiff's pain with various medications and Toradol shots. On December 18, 2015, Plaintiff was transferred to KVSP. The operative complaint alleges specific incidents of deliberate indifference. On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff was called to the medical clinics in response to the CDCR 7362 submitted by the appeals coordinator. Plaintiff could not walk and other prisoners had to assist him there. Plaintiff was met by Defendant Palomino. Instead of even attempting to help Plaintiff in any way, Defendant Palomino spent the entire few minutes berating him about having filed an inmate grievance. Defendant Palomino then told Plaintiff to leave the clinic and said the doctor would see him in two weeks. However, Plaintiff was never called back. On March 19, 2019, Plaintiff was called to the clinic. Defendant Palomino said Plaintiff had not yet seen the doctor because Rafanan, who Defendant Palomino said was a "trainee," had forgotten to submit Plaintiff's doctor referral on February 26, 2019. Defendant Palomino ordered Plaintiff to leave the clinic and said he would be seen by the doctor in two weeks. This time Plaintiff refused to leave without being helped. After a tense standoff with both medical and custody staff, Defendant Palomino eventually relented and agreed to call and get Plaintiff a Toradol shot for the first time at KVSP. On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff was at physical therapy and could not participate due to back pain. He requested a Toradol shot for the pain. At the A yard clinic, Defendant Palomino and another non-defendant nurse witnessed Plaintiff in obvious pain and refused to help him. They told him they could not see him until he submitted a formal health care request. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff was called to the A yard clinic where he met with Defendant Palomino. Defendant failed to examine Plaintiff and sent him to the Triage Treatment Area for a Toradol shot without an examination. The Court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995, which requires that prisoners exhaust "such administrative remedies as are available" before commencing a suit challenging prison conditions. The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and the defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. The Court noted that California Code of Regulations Title 15, Sections 3999.225 through 3999.237 governs the health care grievance process. Under these regulations, incarcerated persons may grieve issues regarding health care policies, decisions, actions, conditions, or omissions using a CDCR 602 HC, Health Care Grievance form. Health care grievances are subject to two levels of review: institutional level review and headquarters level review with the Health Care Correspondence Appeals Branch. Defendant argued that Plaintiff submitted grievances related to some, but not all, of his claims at the first level of review but failed to pursue any of the grievances to the second level of review, thereby barring his claims under the PLRA. The Court found there was no dispute that there was an available administrative grievance process at KVSP during the relevant time frame. Defendant presented evidence that on March 18, 2019, Plaintiff submitted Health Care Grievance Log Number 271 to report the issues he experienced during the February 26, 2019 appointment and to report that he had not been seen by a doctor for his back pain. The institution issued an institutional level response with a disposition of "No Intervention" on May 28, 2019, and delivered it to Plaintiff. There was no record that Plaintiff submitted grievance Log Number 271 for headquarters level review. Defendant also showed that Plaintiff submitted health care grievance log number KVSP HC 19000529 on June 5, 2019. This grievance documented events that Plaintiff alleges took place on May 6, 2019 and May 7, 2019. The institution issued an institutional level response with a disposition of "No Intervention" on July 15, 2019, and delivered it to Plaintiff. There was no record that Plaintiff submitted grievance Log Number 529 for headquarters level review. Plaintiff did not dispute that he did not pursue these grievances through all levels of review. Rather, Plaintiff argued that by the time prison officials rendered a decision on May 28, 2019, he had already been seen for back pain at least four times, received Toradol shots at least five times, received a lumbar MRI, received a wheelchair and accommodation, and received physical therapy. Thus, Plaintiff contended that he received what was requested and no further relief was available. Plaintiff argued he did not file a grievance for the March 19, 2019 incident, because on that date, Defendant provided the medical treatment Plaintiff wanted. Plaintiff submitted that he feared a grievance would anger Defendant and cause her to retaliate and refuse medical care in the future. The Court found that none of the circumstances rendered administrative remedies unavailable, and Plaintiff was not excused from the exhaustion requirement. At all relevant times, CDCR, CCHCS, and KVSP had an administrative remedy process available to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's use of the health care grievance process related to some of his claims in this action demonstrated that the process was not a dead-end, Plaintiff was aware of how to use the process, and he was not thwarted from using the process. The Court determined that Plaintiff knew the process was not a dead end. Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies for other unrelated health care grievances prior to the incidents in question, in 2018, and later in the same year, 2019, by submitting a health care grievance at the institutional level and then appealing the institutional level decision to the second, and final, level of review at headquarters. Plaintiff's health care grievance history showed that he was aware of the need to proceed through both levels of review. Regarding Plaintiff's satisfaction argument, the Court found that the undisputed evidence showed that Plaintiff could not have been satisfied with the relief he was offered at the institutional level of review because none was actually offered. The "relief" that Plaintiff referred to in his opposition was not relief offered in response to the relevant grievances. Plaintiff presented no evidence that the medical care he was receiving while he waited for the institutional level response was in any way related to the grievances. The Court noted that Plaintiff could not claim he was satisfied with the remedy at the time of the grievances but was now dissatisfied and could sue. The institutional response to Log Number 271 specifically stated that although Plaintiff claimed deliberate indifference in the grievance, his disagreement with the medical decisions of his treatment team did not constitute staff misconduct or deliberate indifference. Plaintiff was specifically not granted any relief related to any deliberate indifference he alleged arose on February 26, 2019. The Court examined Plaintiff's retaliation argument, noting that the threat of retaliation for reporting an incident can render the prison grievance process effectively unavailable and thereby excuse a prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. To show that a threat rendered a grievance system unavailable, a plaintiff must establish both that he subjectively believed prison officials would retaliate against him if he filed a grievance and that this fear was objectively reasonable. The Court found that Plaintiff's own statements contradicted that he subjectively believed Defendant would retaliate against him if he filed a grievance. Even if Plaintiff could establish his subjective belief, Plaintiff could not establish that his fear was objectively reasonable. Plaintiff acknowledged that Defendant did not threaten to retaliate against Plaintiff for filing a grievance, and Defendant made no specific threat or statement implying she would retaliate. The Court noted that Plaintiff's own actions and statements belied his claim that he feared retaliation by Defendant if he filed a grievance. Several weeks after his March 19, 2019 interaction with Defendant, at the very time Plaintiff supposedly feared retaliation for raising allegations against Defendant, Plaintiff was interviewed about Log Number 271. The interview took place on April 17, 2019, during which Plaintiff identified Defendant as the nurse who allegedly failed to provide medical care on February 26, 2019. The Court concluded that Plaintiff's general and unsubstantiated fear was insufficient to render the grievance system unavailable, and Plaintiff should not be excused from the exhaustion requirement. The Court noted that in the operative complaint, Plaintiff stated that his grievances "were denied at every level." Plaintiff did not claim that fear of retaliation prevented him from exhausting administrative remedies. Therefore, the Court found that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff demonstrated that he failed to properly exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing this action. Accordingly, the Court determined that Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court recommended that Defendant's motion for summary judgment filed on December 16, 2024, be granted and the instant action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sgJYSp LA TORE SPECIALTIES: Pasa Seeks Damages for FLSA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Pasa, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. La Tore Specialties LLC, and Ricardo Torres, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00441 (M.D. Fla., May 26, 2025) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Pasa as a non-exempt, full-time construction employee from approximately August 01, 2022, to December 21, 2024, or 125 weeks. The Plaintiff worked regularly for a total of 60 hours weekly. However, the Plaintiff was paid the same amount regardless of the number of hours worked, says the suit. La Tore Specialties is a Florida limited construction company specializing in roofing projects. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LEE ENTERPRISES: $9.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that was filed against Lee Enterprises, Inc. ("Lee" or "Defendant"). In the class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege Lee disclosed Plaintiffs' and Settlement Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") to Facebook without consent through use of tracking methods in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA"). The VPPA defines PII to include information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider. Lee denies that it has violated the VPPA or any other law. The parties have agreed to the settlement without any admission of liability and solely to avoid the uncertainties and expenses associated with continuing the lawsuit. Persons included in the proposed Settlement will be eligible to receive a pro rata (meaning equal) portion of the Settlement Fund, which Class Counsel anticipates will be approximately $41.01. The proposed Settlement also includes injunctive relief halting the alleged practices. The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, is overseeing this case. The case is called Stoudemire, et al. v. Lee Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00086-SHL-WPK. The persons who have sued are called the Plaintiffs. The Defendant is Lee. WHO'S INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT? The Settlement Class is defined as: The approximately 1.6 million Lee subscribers identified on the Settlement Class List generated by Lee who accessed video material on a Lee website at any time from December 19, 2020, until March 4, 2025 and who used Facebook during that time. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Judge and Magistrate Judge presiding over this Action, as well as their immediate family members; (ii) Lee, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Lee has a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees; and (iii) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS Monetary Relief: Defendant has created a Settlement Fund totaling $9,500,000.00. Class Member payments, and the cost to administer the Settlement, the cost to inform people about the Settlement, attorneys' fees, and an award to the Class Representative will also come out of this fund. Defendant has agreed to suspend operation of the Facebook or Meta Pixel on any pages on its websites or application that track video content and have a URL that identifies the title of the video content requested or viewed (if any), until the VPPA is amended, repealed, or otherwise invalidated, or unless Defendant has obtained valid consent to share the information. A detailed description of the settlement benefits can be found in the Settlement Agreement available on the settlement website at www.LeeSettlement.com. If you are a Class Member and you want to get a payment, you must complete and submit a Claim Form by July 17, 2025. A Claim Form can be submitted on the settlement website at www.LeeSettlement.com or by printing and mailing a paper Claim Form, copies of which are available for download on the settlement website www.LeeSettlement.com. To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must mail or otherwise deliver a letter (or request for exclusion) stating that you want to be excluded from the Stoudemire, et al. v. Lee Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00086-SHL-WPK settlement. Your letter or request for exclusion must also include your full name, your current address, your signature, the name and number of this case, and the words "request for exclusion" or a comparable statement that you do not wish to participate in the Settlement. You must place in the mail or deliver your exclusion request no later than July 17, 2025, to: Lee Settlement Administrator c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC P.O. Box 59479 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 If you do not file a timely request for exclusion, you will lose the opportunity to exclude yourself from the Settlement and will be bound by the Settlement. You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Final Approval Hearing. To do so, you must include in your letter or brief objecting to the settlement a statement saying that it is your "Notice of Intent to Appear in Stoudemire, et al. v. Lee Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00086-SHL-WPK." It must include your name, address, telephone number and signature as well as the name and address of your lawyer, if one is appearing for you. Your objection and notice of intent to appear must be filed with the Court and postmarked no later than July 17, 2025, and must be sent to the addresses listed below: Court U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA DAVENPORT DIVISION 131 EAST 4TH STREET DAVENPORT, IA 52801 Class Counsel J. BARTON GOPLERUD BRIAN O. MARTY SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 GRAND RIDGE DRIVE, SUITE 100 WEST DES MOINES, IA 50265 MARK S. REICH COURTNEY E. MACCARONE GARY S. ISHIMOTO LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 WHITEHALL, 17TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10006 Defendant's Counsel IAN J. RUSSELL JOSHUA J. MCINTYRE LANE & WATERMAN LLP 220 NORTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 600 DAVENPORT, IA 52801 RONALD I. RAETHER, JR. TAMBRY L. BRADFORD TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 100 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1500 IRVINE, CA 92618 - AND - ANGELO A. STIO III TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 301 CARNEGIE CENTER, SUITE 400 PRINCETON, NJ 08543 FINAL APPROVAL HEARING The Court will hold the Final Approval Hearing at 9:00 a.m. on December 10, 2025, in Courtroom 242 at the U.S. District Courthouse, 131 East 4th Street, Davenport, Iowa 52801. The purpose of the hearing will be for the Court to determine whether to approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class; to consider Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses; and to consider the request for an incentive award to the Class Representatives. At that hearing, the Court will be available to hear any objections and arguments concerning the fairness of the Settlement. The hearing may be rescheduled to a different date or time without notice, so it is a good idea to check www.LeeSettlement.com or call 1 (888) 337-8409. If, however, you timely objected to the Settlement and advised the Court that you intend to appear and speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you will receive notice of any change in the date of such Final Approval Hearing. This Notice summarizes the Settlement. More details are in the Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement at www.LeeSettlement.com. You may also write with questions to Lee Settlement Administrator, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 or to LeeSettlement@rg2claims.com. You can call the Settlement Administrator at (888) 337-8409 if you have any questions. Before doing so, however, please read this full Notice carefully. You may also find additional information elsewhere on the case website. LELAND DUDEK: LNP Bid for Class Cert. Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.N.P., v. LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01196-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court certifies the following class: "All Eligible Children of Early Retirees, where such children, between and including May 10, 2024 and May 30, 2025, received a child's insurance benefit under Section 402(d) of the Social Security Act (the "Act") that was reduced under Section 403(a)(1) of the Act because the Social Security Administration (the "SSA") used the PIA of the Early Retiree instead of the RIB in determining whether the Family Maximum was exceeded, and therefore such children may be entitled to past due benefits." "Eligible Children" means, as set forth in Section 402(d)(1) of the Act, any child of an Early Retiree (i) who filed, or for whom was filed, an application for child's insurance benefits, (ii) who at the time such application was filed was unmarried and either had not attained the age of 18 or was a full-time elementary or secondary school student and had not attained the age of 19, and (iii) who was dependent on such Early Retiree at the time of the application. As necessary, Eligible Children shall also include the child's legal representative and/or representative payee. Early Retiree means any individual entitled to receive old-age insurance benefits (but not disability benefits) under Section 402(a) of the Act who applied for and received such benefits prior to reaching full retirement age and therefore received a reduced old-age benefit lower than that of his/her PIA. PIA is the primary insurance amount as defined by the Act. RIB is the retirement insurance benefit that is actually paid to the Early Retiree. Family Maximum, as defined in Section 403(a)(1) of the Act, is the maximum amount of total monthly benefits to which beneficiaries may be entitled under Section 402 of the Act on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of the Early Retiree. Excluded from the class are: (i) Eligible Children who are deceased, (ii) Eligible Children who are not United States citizens, and (iii) Eligible Children of an Early Retiree who ever had excess earnings under Section 403(b). The Plaintiff L.N.P. contends that the Social Security Administration ("SSA") has been applying the wrong formula in calculating the social security benefits that are payable to children of parents who retire before reaching the full retirement age. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J26SwM at no extra charge.[CC] LEXISNEXIS RISK: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O., Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC. and LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL Inc, each a division of RELX, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02504-MHC-RDC (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying scheduling order as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class Oct. 17, 2025 Certification: Deadline for Defendant's opposition Nov. 14, 2025 response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion Dec. 12, 2025 for class certification: Fact Discovery Deadline: Jan. 19, 2026 Expert Discovery Deadline: April 17, 2026 Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the May 15, 2026 alternative, file a proposed consolidated pretrial order: LexisNexis provides information to financial institutions, insurance carriers, healthcare providers and government agencies. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ANavjf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. Andrew L. Weiner, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 800 Battery Ave. SE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 205-5029 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: js@wsjustice.com aw@wsjsutice.com - and - Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 Facsimile: (973) 282-8603 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fassina Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE FASSINA, STEVEN EDELEN, KENNETH BLACK, CRAIG DOBBS, and NANCY DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, and LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-11466-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class consisting of Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company ("LMFIC"), Safeco Insurance Company of America ("Safeco of America"), LM Insurance Corporation ("LM"), and Liberty Insurance Corporation ("LIC") policyholders to seek monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The PCRs seek certification of the following class, defined as: "All LMFIC, Safeco of America, LM, and LIC personal-lines property insurance policyholders (or their lawful assignees) who made: (1) a structural damage claim for property located in the States at Issue; (2) for which Liberty accepted coverage and issued an actual cash value payment during the class period that was calculated by Liberty exclusively through Xactimate (TM) software or Symbility (TM) software; and (3) Liberty's own calculation of actual cash value resulted in a reduced actual cash value payment due to the "manipulation of estimating software," or which resulted in an eliminated actual cash value payment because the manipulation of estimating software caused the loss payment to drop below the applicable deductible." The class excludes any claims arising under labor depreciation permissive policy forms, defined as those forms and endorsements expressly addressing the subject matter of labor depreciation for actual cash value payments on structural damage claims and then permitting the "depreciation" of "labor" by using those same terms within the text of the policy form. The class also excludes any claims for which the applicable limits of insurance have been exhausted by the initial actual cash value payment. Finally, the class excludes any judicial officer presiding over this action and his/her judicial staff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs move for an order certifying the proposed class, appointing the PCRs as class representatives, appointing J. Brandon McWherter, Erik D. Peterson, T. Joseph Snodgrass, and Jonathan M. Feigenbaum as class counsel, and providing all other relief requested that is just and to which the PCRs and/or the class may be entitled. Liberty is a property and casualty insurer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=puFEqf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW LLC 100 S. Fifth Street, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 448-2600 E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com - and - Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 357-9700 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES 110 West Vine Street, Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law - and - J. Brandon Mcwherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: brandon@msb.law MANAGED CARE: Kleinheksel et al. Sue Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- DEVON KLEINHEKSEL, HARRY BASS and ERIKA MCDANIEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, MCNA INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, and HEALTHPLEX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61045-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2025) arises from Defendants' failure to secure the highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiffs and other customers. On or about February 26, 2023, hackers first gained access to Defendants' network and stole data containing patients' full name, address, date of birth, telephone number, email address, Social Security number, driver's license number, government-issued ID number, health insurance information, Medicaid-Medicare ID number, information about medical care or treatment, bills and insurance claims. However, it was not until May 26, 2023--eleven weeks after Defendants detected the attack on March 6, 2023--that Defendants began notifying customers of the data breach, says the suit. Headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, FL, Managed Care of North America, Inc. operates as a dental benefits manager, which provides services to state agencies and managed care organizations for their Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program, and Medicare members. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com - and - Stephanie A. Casey, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 E-mail: scasey@colson.com MANDYTODDCO INC: Walsh and Lucas Sue Over Illegal Pay Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Jena Walsh and Connor Lucas, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mandytoddco, Inc. and Todd Rowley, individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00758 (E.D. Mo., May 26, 2025) arises from Defendants' alleged illegal pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout their employment at Williamsburg Pet Hotel & Suites, the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated were paid at a fixed hourly rate. Although clients typically left tips, both in cash and by credit card, for the boarding of their pets, until the beginning of 2024, Williamsburg Pet Hotel & Suites did not disburse these tips to its kennel workers. Moreover, the Defendants' practice of keeping all or part of employees' tips is in direct violation of the tip provisions of the FLSA. Mandytoddco, Inc., formerly known as Williamsburg Pet Hotel & Suites, Inc., owns and operates a pet boarding/grooming/training/day camp facility in Manchester, MO. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip E. Oliphant, Esq. THE ROLWES EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM 254 Court Avenue, Suite 305 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 519-9135 Facsimile: (901) 979-2499 E-mail: poliphant@rolweslaw.com MARSHA MCLANE: Richards Seeks to Certify Class of Patients ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Richards, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Marsha Mclane, Executive Director Texas Civil Commitment Office, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00075-H (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification on behalf of all similarly situated patients who are or will be civilly committed and hospitalized at the Texas Civil Commitment Center (TCCC) in Little, Texas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q86PAY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MEDICAL TRANSPORT: Sori Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Yaxon Sori, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Medical Transport Solutions, Inc., a/k/a MTS Angels of Transportation, Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-80643-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2025) seeks to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Yaxon Sori as a full-time, non-exempt driver from approximately September 18, 2023, through March 24, 2025, or 79 weeks. The Plaintiff had no bona fide lunch breaks due to his job duties. However, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked over 40. In addition, the Plaintiff was paid weekly by direct deposits, without any paystub or record showing the number of days and hours worked, says the suit. Medical Transport Solutions, Inc. provides non-emergency medical transportation services in Palm Beach County, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Maadanian Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEYYED JAVAD MAADANIAN, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, MERCEDES0BENZ AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, and MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Case No. 2:22-cv-00665-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Because all of the required elements of Rule 23 are satisfied, Plaintiff’s motion for class certification should be granted, and Plaintiff Seyyed Javad Maadanian should be appointed as the Class Representative and his counsel appointed as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff moves to certify the following Class: "All owners residing in the State of Washington who owned vehicles subject to the NHTSA Recall Number 22CV315 between May 12, 2022 through the date that recall stop-drive for the recalled vehicle was lifted." The Plaintiff Maadanian purchased a 2011 Mercedes-Benz ML 350, one of thousands of Mercedes Benz 2004-2015 ML-Class, GL-Class, and R-Class vehicles uniformly equipped with a defective braking system. Mercedes-Benz is responsible for the distribution, marketing and customer service for all Mercedes-Benz products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NaEN9n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com1 reddyp@emeryreddy.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq. Jordan M. Steele, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com cbartlett@carellabyrne.com jsteele@carellabyrne.com - and - Zachary S. Bower, Esq. Zachary Jacobs, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 2222 Ponce DeLeon Blvd. Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (973) 422-5593 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: zbower@carellabyrne.com zjacobs@carellabyrne.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 679-8656 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com - and - Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq. Sarah J. Schultz, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com sarah@schlesingerlaw.com MERCEDES-BENZ: Maadanian Seeks to File Class Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEYYED JAVAD MAADANIAN, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, MERCEDES-BENZ AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, and MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Case No. 2:22-cv-00665-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to file under seal certain confidential documents and information subject to the stipulated protective order entered in this action that are being filed with Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The majority of the Defendants' production contains documents marked as confidential, highly confidential, or attorneys' eyes only. The Plaintiff desires to rely on such documents in support of its motion for summary judgment. These documents include: a. Exhibit 2: E-mail correspondence between MBUSA employees dated June 24, 2022, through June 28, 2022, produced by the Defendants in this matter as MBUSA_0032332–32333, marked as "confidential"; b. Exhibit 4: PowerPoint presentation dated May 5, 2022 produced by Defendants in this matter as MBUSA_0000667–674, marked as "highly confidential"; and c. Exhibit 7: email correspondence between Mercedes Benz AG (MBAG) employees dated May 18, 2022, through June 1, 2022 produced by Defendants in this litigation as MBGAG_00000180–186, marked as "confidential." The Plaintiff certifies that he has met and conferred through counsel for the Defendant in an attempt to reach agreement on the need to file the documents designated confidential by the Defendant under seal, to minimize the amount of material filed under seal, and to explore redaction and other alternatives to filing under seal. Mercedes-Benz is responsible for the distribution, marketing and customer service for all Mercedes-Benz products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vqmBxv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com1 reddyp@emeryreddy.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq. Jordan M. Steele, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com cbartlett@carellabyrne.com jsteele@carellabyrne.com - and - Zachary S. Bower, Esq. Zachary Jacobs, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 2222 Ponce DeLeon Blvd. Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (973) 422-5593 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: zbower@carellabyrne.com zjacobs@carellabyrne.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 679-8656 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com - and - Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq. Sarah J. Schultz, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com sarah@schlesingerlaw.com META PLATFORMS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 7, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04181-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order approving the joint proposed second amended case schedule as follows. Event Deadline Deadline for Completion of Non-Expert Sept. 25, 2025 Discove1y Relevant to Early Smnmary Judgment Motion Merits Issues: Hearing on Early Summary Judgment Motion: April 24, 2026 Plaintiffs Deadline to File: (1) Motion for May 7, 2026 Class Ce1iification and (2) Expe1i Reports Related to Class Certification: Defendant's Deadline to File: (1) Response June 11, 2026 to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Ce1iification and (2) Expert reports Related to Class Certification: Plaintiffs Deadline to File: (1) Reply in July 9, 2026 Support of Class Certification and (2) Rebuttal Expert Reports Related to Class Certification: Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: July 31, 2026 Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HVS64f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. Craig S. Momita, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com elise@aswtlawyers.com arnold@aswtlawyers.com craig@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com - and - Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. Thomas C. Horscroft, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com thorscroft@ghalaw.com daniel@ghalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Michael Brandon, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Diana Feinstein, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com mbrandon@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com dfeinstein@gibsondunn.com - and - Gary S. Feinerman, Esq. Kathryn K. George, Esq. Robert C. Collins III, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 E-mail: gary.feinerman@lw.com katie.george@lw.com robert.collins@lw.com MOBILE MEDIC: Oliver Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Replies --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDIN OLIVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MOBILE MEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00180-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file replies in support of motions for certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests an extension of time, up to and including June 17, 2025, within which to file Replies in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Certification of a Collective. This Motion is made in good faith and is not intended for the purpose of delay. The requested extension will not unduly delay these proceedings. Counsel for Plaintiff has conferred with counsel for the the Defendant via email regarding the relief requested herein. Counsel for the Defendant advised that they do not oppose this request for a brief extension of time. No party will be unfairly prejudiced by the requested extension, nor will this case be unduly delayed. The Plaintiff files his Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Certification of a Collective on April 21, 2025. The Defendant filed its Responses to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for certification of a collective on May 27, 2025. The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into another Tolling Agreement agreeing to toll the running of any applicable statute of limitations on putative plaintiffs' and class members' claims under the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) and WARN Act from June 3, 2025, through June 17, 2025. Mobile provides emergency medical systems services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vwl5Gt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Discovery in Myers Due Sept. 15 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Myers v. County of Nassau, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-07023 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 17, 2022), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed request to "take supplemental targeted discovery during the class certification motion briefing period." -- All such discovery shall be completed by Sept. 15, 2025. -- The Plaintiff represents that he "intends to move the Court for an order bifurcating all proceedings in this case into a liability and a relief phase" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Any such motion shall be filed by Aug. 15. 2025. The motion and any response shall comply with District Judge Sanket J. Bulsara's Individual Practice Rules. -- The parties shall submit a joint status report on July 13, 2025 -- All prior deadlines set by the undersigned remain in place. The nature of suit states Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination).[CC] NATIONAL TENANT: Clermont Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vanessa Clermont, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. National Tenant Network, Inc.; and LCIJ, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-03545-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court before the Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo, on Aug. 4, 2025 (or on such other date as the Court shall schedule), for an Order certifying the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All persons who were the subject of the Defendants National Tenant Network, Inc.'s and LCIJ, Inc.'s postcards, substantially similar to the postcard concerning the Plaintiff, sent during the FCRA statute of limitations period, 15 U.S.C. section 1681p." National provides resident screening services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XNhHYP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Joshua Markovits, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 NEW YORK, NY: Status Report in Aboubakar Class Suit Due June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aboubakar, et al., v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01716 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 7, 2020), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order granting request to stay discovery and motion for class certification for 60 days pending outcome of mediation and settlement discussions. -- Status Report due by June 30, 2025. the nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Status Report in Brennan Class Suit Due June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brennan, et al., v. City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02054 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2019), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order granting request to stay discovery and motion for class certification for 60 days pending outcome of mediation and settlement discussions. -- Status Report due by June 30, 2025. The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Status Report in Capobianco Class Suit Due June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Capobianco, et al., v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06125 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 3, 2021), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order granting request to stay discovery and motion for class certification for 60 days pending outcome of mediation and settlement discussions. -- Status Report due by June 30, 2025. the nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC] NIKE RETAIL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Jones Suit Due Sept. 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones, et al., v. Nike Retail Services, Inc. (NRS), Case No. 2:22-cv-03343 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 6, 2022), the Hon. Judge Nina R. Morrison entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery order: -- The parties shall file a mediation status report on July 23, 2025. -- Completion of discovery shall be on Aug. 22, 2025. -- Service of the class certification motion shall be on or before Sept. 8, 2025. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. NRS is a subsidiary of Nike, Inc., the global athletic footwear and apparel corporation. Established in 1985, NRS focuses on providing retail services for Nike, including managing its own physical stores and online platforms.[CC] NUSCALE POWER: Securities Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Karin J. Immergut of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the consolidated cases captioned as SCOTT SIGMAN, v. NUSCALE POWER CORPORATION et al Case Nos. 3:23-cv-01689-IM and 3:23-cv-01956-IM (D. Or.), with leave to amend. Lead Plaintiffs bring this consolidated putative class action behalf of all persons and entities that purchased NuScale Power Corporation securities between March 15, 2023, and August 2, 2024. NuScale is a publicly traded Oregon-based nuclear power company that develops small modular reactors. The individual defendants were executives: -- John L. Hopkins was NuScale's Chief Executive Officer throughout the Class Period; -- Chris Colbert was NuScale's Chief Financial Officer until August 7, 2023; -- Robert R. Hamady, NuScale's Chief Financial Officer since August 7, 2023; -- Clayton Scott, NuScale's Executive Vice President of Business Development until August 7, 2023, when he was promoted to Chief Commercial Officer. NuScale's first customer was the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS). In 2015, UAMPS retained NuScale to build SMRs and provide power to its members by 2029. The project, called the Carbon Free Power Project would develop a nuclear power plant made up of with six modular reactors, capable of producing a total of 462-megawatt electricity. Costs escalated. In January 2023, NuScale raised the projected price to $89/MWh, and the project's estimated construction cost likewise rose from $5.3 billion to $9.3 billion. Subscription challenges arose. In February 2023, NuScale and UAMPS agreed that UAMPS could terminate its agreement with NuScale if NuScale did not meet a subscription target of 370 MWe-80% of the CFPP's total capacity-by February 1, 2024. At the time the parties made that agreement, the committed subscription level was 120 MWe, or 25% of total capacity. The project failed. In a press release on November 8, 2023, NuScale and UAMPS announced they had mutually agreed to terminate CFPP. On October 6, 2023, NuScale issued a press release announcing plans to develop two power plants for Standard Power in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The two plants had a projected capacity of 1,848 MWe, and the value of the project for NuScale was $37 billion. NuScale's Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2023 filed on August 9, 2023, stated that its maximum liability for the CFPP agreement was $15,293. The Form stated that liability was only 'reasonably possible' and therefore recorded no accrual for material loss contingencies. NuScale's subsequent Form 10-Q for the third quarter of 2023 filed on November 9, 2023, reported that liability was 'probable.' An SEC inquiry occurred. In December 2023, NuScale received a 'voluntary request' from the SEC 'for information relating to its employment, severance, and confidentiality agreements,' which NuScale 'understood to be part of a broader inquiry involving multiple companies related to the SEC's whistleblower provisions.' Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, NuScale and several of its corporate executives made false or misleading statements about the state of NuScale's two projects, in a form submitted to the SEC, and about an SEC inquiry. Plaintiffs allege that, in doing so, Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. For the CFPP, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements about the CFPP subscription drive on several earnings calls with investors in March, May, and August 2023. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misled investors by omitting that: (1) members had opted out of CFPP because the price increased, (2) NuScale's internal projections exceeded $89/MWh and NuScale concluded it could not reduce prices, (3) NuScale had failed to add new subscribers or increase subscription rates. On an earnings call with investors, in response to a question about NuScale's 'level of confidence' in meeting the 80% subscription target by February 2024, CEO Colbert stated: "[T]he news is that as you saw with [UAMPS] coming forward with 26 or 27 members voting to move forward with the project earlier this year at the $89 per megawatt hour price, that's very much indicative of a market that's changing and tightening in that area." CFO Hopkins stated on May 9 that NuScale was "working closely with UAMPS on securing additional subscriptions and believe this is going to be generated through a combination of existing CFPP participating members increasing their subscription levels, UAMPS members who are not currently CFPP participants signing on to the project, and additional Western public power entities, investor-owned utilities and industrials." Plaintiffs alleged that these statements during the investor call were materially false and/or misleading because Defendants omitted material adverse facts about Standard Power's financial ability to support the project, its need for a project of its size, and about ENTRA1's ability to finance the project. On October 6, 2023, Vice President of Business Development Clayton Scott said the press release was a 'major announcement' and a 'massive move.' Regarding SEC filings, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated GAAP in their Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2023. Plaintiffs also said that the form was misleading because Defendants knew NuScale would likely fail to meet the 80% subscription target for CFPP and were therefore required to record an accrual. For the SEC inquiry, Plaintiffs allege that NuScale's 10-K Form for 2023 and NuScale's spokespeople's statements in the Hunterbrook Report and July 29, 2024 press release were misleading by implying to investors that an SEC inquiry was hypothetical when NuScale knew at the time that the SEC 'had opened an investigation' into NuScale. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for securities fraud under the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ('PSLRA'). Defendants argue the alleged misstatements are inactionable because (1) they are forward-looking statements protected under the PSLRA's safe harbor provision; (2) they are inactionable puffery or opinion statements; (3) Defendants had no duty to disclose the omitted facts, and the statements were not false when made; and (4) Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded falsity as to the SEC quarterly filings and SEC investigation. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege falsity under the heightened pleading standards imposed by Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA. Most of the alleged misstatements about NuScale's two projects are inactionable puffery or forward-looking statements protected by the PSLRA's safe-harbor provision, and Plaintiffs fail to allege that Defendants misled investors by omitting certain facts. Plaintiffs also fail to plead falsity as to the SEC quarterly filings and the SEC inquiry. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted. For CFPP and Standard Power statements, the court concluded that Plaintiffs fail to plead falsity as to all of Defendants' statements to investors about CFPP and Standard Power because they are forward-looking statements protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor provision, express classic corporate puffery, and are not misleading by omission. The court noted that most of the alleged misstatements are forward-looking statements that are shielded from liability by the PSLRA safe harbor provision, as they concern predictions about whether the CFPP or Standard Power projects would succeed and whether favorable market conditions would continue. The court further concluded that the forward-looking statements were either accompanied by cautionary language or made without actual knowledge of falsity. For example, on the August 9 call, Hopkins warned that "it is possible that conditions arise that the project could terminate and UAMPS could recover a portion of its net development cost and expense." On puffery, the court stated: "Colbert was opining that some subscribers' willingness to pay the higher price may indicate the market in the Western region was changing in a way that could be helpful for the CFPP, and that he 'think[s]' that shift will continue. Such 'sincere statement[s] of pure opinion' are not actionable." Regarding omissions, the court found: "Plaintiffs fail to plead with specificity when the allegedly material facts about CFPP became known to Defendants, such that the statements were false when made." For SEC filings, the court determined that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a material misrepresentation based on NuScale's failure to report accrual in the second quarter 2023 Form 10-Q." It explained: "Here, the SAC does not contain any specific allegations explaining why Defendants' decision not to report accrual in the June 30 filing was fraudulent, rather than a permissible judgment call." On the SEC inquiry, the court found that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded why or how the 2023 Form 10-K was misleading or why the December 2023 SEC inquiry was material such that Defendants had a duty to disclose it." It noted: "Plaintiffs have not pleaded how or why the 2023 Form 10-K was misleading." For Section 20(a) claims, the court stated: "Because there was no primary violation here, Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims are dismissed." The court granted the motion by saying "For the reasons above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, Sigman, ECF 55, is granted with leave to amend. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vgc77Z OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Lilien Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE LILIEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. OLAPLEX HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-08395-SVW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 21, 2025, will move the Court for an entry of an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (1) certifying the Class (defined in Lead Plaintiff's memorandum of points and authorities); (2) appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and (3) appointing Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel. Olaplex manufactures and retails hair care products such as shampoos. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MO13oG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren A. Ormsbee, Esq. Lisa M. Strejlau, Esq. Charles J. Stiene, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: lormsbee@labaton.com lstrejlau@labaton.com cstiene@labaton.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 432-1495 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com OLIN CORPORATION: Court Stays Davis Suit Until Sept. 8 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT DAVIS, ET AL. V. OLIN CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 3:22-cv-00374-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Brian Jackson entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend administrative closure. The Court further entered an order that: -- the action be and is stayed and administratively closed until Sept. 8,2025. -- the Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification be and is suspended. Olin is an American manufacturer of ammunition, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uwV10h at no extra charge.[CC] OPTAVIA LLC: Settlement Class in Alpert Gets Final Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELICA ALPERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OPTAVIA LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00434-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana Sabraw entered an order granting unopposed motion for final class certification and approval of class action settlement and entering final judgment. Pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Court finally certifies the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Class is defined as follows: "All California customers enrolled in Optavia Premier from Oct. 1, 2017 to March 17, 2022 and who received one automatic Optavia Premier shipment and then cancelled." The Settlement Agreement is finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Court finally appoints Plaintiff Angelica Alpert as Class Representative and appoints Dovel & Luner LLP and Golomb Legal P.C. as Class Counsel. The Court finds that the Notice Plan—as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and executed by the Parties—complied with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and Rule 23(e). A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PNiSky at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com - and - Kevin W. Fay, Esq. GOLOMB LEGAL P.C. One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street, #1600 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 E-mail: kfay@golomblegal.com PEPGEN INC: Faces Karam Suit Over $5.55/Share Stock Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY KARAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEPGEN INC., JAMES MCARTHUR, and NOEL DONNELLY, Case No. 1:25-cv-03221 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2025) is a federal securities class action 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, seeking to recover damages caused by the 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. 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 was 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. The 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. 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 PGN-EDO51 was less effective and safe than Defendants had led investors to believe. 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 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. 15. 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. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, alleges the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com PINK LILY: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pink Lily Holdings, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-02376 (D. Minn., June 9, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website, www.pinklily.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant offers women's clothing and accessories, including but not limited to tops, bottoms, dresses, swimwear, sleepwear, athleisure, shoes, and beauty supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com POMA CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chacon Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- John Chacon, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Poma Corporation, and Frank Poma, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-14171-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants regular and overtime compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendants Poma Corporation and Frank Poma employed Plaintiff John Chacon as a nonexempt, full-time construction employee from approximately March 04, 2025, to April 4, 2025, or four weeks. During the relevant period, the Plaintiff performed as a metal construction laborer and worked one week with five days and 65 hours, and three weeks with six days per week, with a total of 78 working hours. However, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of Section 7 of FLSA. Moreover, the Plaintiff was fired by Defendants after he reported to the police an assault and battery he suffered at the workplace. At the time of his termination, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for his last week of work, says the suit. Based in Martin County, Florida, Poma Corporation is a construction company specializing in all kinds of metal structures, including fences, canopy systems, and metal ornamental items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com PRIMAL NUTRITION: Avocado Oil Contains Phthalates, James Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARON JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRIMAL NUTRITION, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00691-SAB (E.D. Cal., June 6, 2025) alleges that Defendant's Primal Kitchen brand avocado oil contains phthalates. Accordingly, the Defendant advertises its Avocado as "Pure" and places a "Pure Quality Tested" logo on the front of the Avocado Oil. Testing from an EPA accredited laboratory has found that Defendants Primal Kitchen Pure Avocado Oil Centrifuge Extracted contains phthalates at a concentration of 2,774 parts per billion (ppb). Phthalate contaminated oil is not "Pure" or "Quality Tested." Phthalates are chemicals that demonstrate to be endocrine disruptors and are detrimental to human health. Phthalates are well-known for their ability to disrupt the hormonal system, with extensive laboratory research concluding that exposure to phthalates reduces hormone levels and leads to an array of reproductive problems. They are horrible for the environment and are not considered part of a pure and quality tested product as Defendant contends. The Plaintiff alleges that the packaging of the Primal brand avocado oil prominently displays on the front label that the Avocado Oil is "non-GMO Project Verified" (the "Non-GMO Claims"). The Defendant's Non-GMO Claims are misleading because all avocado oil products are non-GMO—no GMO version of avocado oil is present on the market today. In fact, no GMO avocado oil has ever been sold. Defendant is using the Non-GMO Claims as a marketing ploy to greenwash its Avocado Oil and gain an unfair advantage over its truthful competitors, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff purchased the Avocado Oil during the class period in California. The Plaintiff relied on Defendant's deceptive advertising and labeling claims in purchasing the Avocado Oil. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells Primal Kitchen brand avocado oil.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. Kurt D. Kessler, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: craig@crosnerlegal.com kurt@crosnerlegal.com PRODRIVERS WEST: Seeks Denial of Cortes Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN CORTES, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRODRIVERS WEST, INC., a Georgia corporation doing business as PRODRIVERS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-02451-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on June 27, 2025, will move the Court to deny class certification of Plaintiff's class claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 on the grounds that: 1. The Plaintiff Benjamin Cortes cannot meet the typicality requirement under Rule 23(a)(3) because the Plaintiff did not accept the Arbitration Agreement and class action waiver with ProDrivers, whereas 95.56% of the Putative Class Members he seeks to represent did; 2. The Plaintiff Benjamin Cortes cannot meet the adequacy requirement under Rule 23(a)(4) because Plaintiff did not accept the Arbitration Agreement and class action waiver with ProDrivers, whereas 95.56% of the Putative Class Members he seeks to represent did; and 3. The Plaintiff Benjamin Cortes cannot meet the numerosity requirement under Rule 23(a)(1) because only eight Putative Class Members, including Plaintiff, did not accept the Arbitration Agreement and class action waiver with ProDrivers, whereas 1,814 Putative Class Members he seeks to represent did. On May 19, 2025, the Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff in accordance with the requirements of Local Rule 7-3 with respect to ProDrivers' Motion to Deny Class Certification. The Parties discussed the substance of ProDrivers' Motion, and the Parties were not able to reach a resolution. ProDrivers is a truck driver staffing company specializing in CDL drivers. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UmTzDU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. Timothy M. Rusche, Esq. Peter J. Choi, Esq. Charles J. Ureña, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com trusche@mcguirewoods.com pchoi@mcguirewoods.com curena@mcguirewoods.com QUALITY ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Solis Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Francisco Solis, Plaintiff v. Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00442 (M.D. Fla., May 26, 2025) is a class action accusing the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was a nonexempt, full-time, hourly employee from approximately September 08, 2021, to September 08, 2022, or 52 weeks. During his employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff had a regular official schedule of five days per week from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM (11 hours daily) or 55 hours weekly. He was also required by his supervisor to begin working at 6:30 AM to pick up his supervisor from his house and take him to work. However, this practice led to Plaintiff working two and a half hours off the clock each week without pay. In addition, the Defendant deducted five hours weekly, corresponding to one hour daily of lunchtime, from Plaintiff's wages even though Plaintiff did not take bona fide lunchtime hours. The Defendant also willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, the suit alleges. Based in Florida, Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. operates as a construction general contractor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com REDFIN CORP: Court Refuses to Lift Stay in Morano Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. John H. Chun of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle denied Plaintiff Jason Morano's ex parte motion for expedited discovery in the case captioned as Morano v. Redfin Corporation et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00883-JHC (W.D. Wash.) This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Jason Morano against Redfin Corporation and others. Redfin is a technology company providing residential real estate brokerage and mortgage origination services. In late 2024, Redfin's Board of Directors explored strategic alternatives, and various parties, including Defendant Rocket Companies, Inc., a financial technology company and mortgage lender, inquired about acquiring Redfin. On December 12, 2024, Redfin's Board formed a committee of three independent directors to oversee strategic alternatives, engaging Goldman Sachs as a financial advisor. On March 9, 2025, Redfin and Rocket executed a Merger Agreement, with a shareholder vote scheduled for June 4, 2025. On May 5, 2025, Redfin filed its definitive proxy statement about the Merger. Plaintiff, a Redfin shareholder, filed a class action complaint on May 9, 2025, alleging violations of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(a), 78t(a), and breach of fiduciary duty under Delaware law. Plaintiff claimed that Redfin's proxy statement was misleading because it failed to disclose the full extent of Goldman Sachs's conflict of interest due to a Revolving Credit Agreement (the Revolver) with Rocket, dated July 2, 2024, providing Rocket access to a $1.15 billion credit facility funded in part by Goldman Sachs. Although Rocket had no outstanding balance as of December 31, 2024, it paid commitment fees to Goldman Sachs. Plaintiff challenged the proxy's statement that Goldman Sachs Investment Banking has an existing lending relationship with Rocket and/or its subsidiaries and that during the two-year period ended March 9, 2025, Goldman Sachs Investment Banking has not been engaged by Rocket or its affiliates to provide financial advisory or underwriting services for which Goldman Sachs has recognized compensation. Plaintiff further alleged that the proxy omitted inputs, such as net operating loss carryforwards, used in Goldman Sachs's discounted cash flow analysis for its Fairness Opinion. Plaintiff sought expedited discovery of documents related to sums paid by Rocket to Goldman Sachs since March 9, 2023, the fairness opinion presentation, and the NOL Projections to support a preliminary injunction to enjoin the June 4, 2025, shareholder vote. Plaintiff argued that without expedited discovery, he would suffer undue prejudice as a shareholder unable to make an informed vote. Defendant argued that the Merger Agreement provided a 63% premium over the volume weighted average price of Redfin's stock over the 30 trading days before the announcement, though Plaintiff contended this premium decreased by 16% post-announcement of the merger. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) "was enacted in 1995 in response to several perceived abuses in securities litigation, including discovery abuses." In pertinent part, the PSLRA provides: In any private action arising under this chapter, all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless the court finds upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party Upon careful review, the Court found that the PSLRA automatically stayed discovery from the case's filing until the complaint's legal sufficiency was tested. The PSLRA permits discovery only if necessary to preserve evidence or prevent undue prejudice. Plaintiff made no argument that the requested documents would be lost without expedited discovery. According to the Court, undue prejudice means improper or unfair detriment that is something less than irreparable harm, balancing truth in the marketplace against meritless litigation. The Court held that Plaintiff failed to explain why expedited discovery was necessary to prevent undue prejudice, as he claimed his preliminary injunction motion already demonstrated a likelihood of success. The Court noted that Plaintiff did not show why specific amounts paid under the Revolver or DCF analysis inputs were essential to his claims. Merely being informationally disadvantaged was insufficient to lift the PSLRA stay. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JVlBLb REGULATORY DATACORP: Class Cert Filing in Hughes Due Jan. 7, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY WAYNE HUGHES and APRIL NICHOLE GRIZZARD, v. REGULATORY DATACORP INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04991-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mia R. Perez entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All factual discovery shall be completed on or before Sept. 30, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff's expert report, if any, is due by Oct. 21, 2025. 3. The Defendant's expert report, if any, is due by Nov. 4, 2025. 4. All expert discovery shall be completed on or before Dec. 5, 2025. 5. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Jan. 7, 2026. 6. Responses shall be filed no later than Feb. 4, 2026. 7. Oral argument on the motion for class certification will be held on March 16, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6A. Regulatory provides comprehensive risk and compliance protection services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7FIJp0 at no extra charge.[CC] SAFE AND SECURE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNALYN CLINE, v. SAFE AND SECURE HOMECARE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00193-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial order. The parties submitted their Rule 26(f) Report on May 29, 2025, and indicated their preference that the Court issue a Preliminary Pretrial Order without a conference. Accordingly, the June 9, 2025 preliminary pretrial conference is vacated. The parties have agreed to make initial disclosures by June 13, 2025. Amendments to Pleadings and/or Joinder of Parties Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed no later than Sept. 19, 2025. The Plaintiffs' motion for court-authorized notice to similarly situated individuals pursuant to Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023) must be filed by Sept. 19, 2025. A motion for class certification, if any, must be filed no later than Nov. 7, 2025. Safe is a service provider for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GZIt5n at no extra charge.[CC] SAFEGUARD PROTECTION: Chapotin Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Hector Chapotin and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Safeguard Protection Services, LLC, Alejandro Batista, and Alejandro Barrios, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-22371-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2025) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Hector Chapotin as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly security employee from approximately October 15, 2023, to December 06, 2024, or 60 weeks. While employed by Defendants, the Plaintiff had a regular schedule, and he worked six days per week, for a total of 48 hours weekly. The Plaintiff did not take bona fide lunchtime periods. However, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that she worked in excess of 40, says the suit. Based Miami-Dade County, FL, Safeguard Protection Services, LLC provides security services to businesses, residential communities, construction sites, retailers, and other businesses engaged in interstate commerce. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SALVAMEX OAXACA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIN FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALVAMEX OAXACA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03017 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.rutaoaxacamex.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. Salvamex Oaxaca, Inc. operates a Mexican restaurant in Brookly, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SAM'S WEST: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Stevenson -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COURTNEY STEVENSON, et al; on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, V. SAM'S WEST, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00294-WHR-CHG (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Walter Rice entered an order as follows: -- Sam's Club's motion to dismiss and to strike is sustained and the Waiakea Defendants' motion to dismiss and to strike is overruled to the extent that the Waiakea Defendants seek to be dismissed from the case entirely, and sustained in all other respects. -- The Plaintiffs' class allegations are stricken without prejudice to refiling within 28 days of this Entry, and Plaintiffs' Claims One and Two are dismissed without prejudice to refiling within 28 days. The Plaintiffs filed suit on Nov. 8, 2024, alleging negligence against Sam's Club and the Waiakea Defendants, strict liability against Sam's Club and the Waiakea Defendants, and breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose against the Waiakea Defendants only. The Plaintiffs set forth a purported Plaintiff class of: a. For Counts I and II, all Ohio residents who purchased or otherwise received Waiakea water from Sam's Club and drank Waiakea's contaminated water in 2023 or 2024. b. For Count III, all Ohio residents who consumed Waiakea's contaminated water in 2023 or 2024. Sam's West is a chain of membership-only warehouse club retail stores in the United States owned by Walmart. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SGBoBk at no extra charge.[CC] SEKAI NIGHT: Johnson Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SEKAI NIGHT AND DAY, ERICK ROBERTS, AND MARIO AZODINIA, INDIVIDUALS, Case No. 4:25-cv-02655 (S.D. Tex., June 9, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay any and all of their employed servers the mandatory minimum wage and overtime according to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff and Collective Members are required to and do in fact frequently work more than 40 hours per workweek, they are not compensated at the FLSA mandated time-and-a-half rate for hours in excess of 40 per workweek. The Collective Members are all current and former servers (i.e. Servers, bottle girls, waiters, waitresses, and the like) who were employed by Defendants at any time beginning three years prior to the filing date of the Complaint to the present. The Defendants operate a dance club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick A. Reed, Esq. Marrick Armstrong, Esq. Ghazal A. Vahora, Esq. STEPHENS REED & ARMSTRONG, PLLC 2626 South Loop W., Suite 522 Houston, Texas 77054 Telephone: (281) 489-3934 E-mail: derrick@srapllc.com marrick@srapllc.com ghazal@srapllc.com SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Sued Over Defective Pressure Cookers ---------------------------------------------------------- CATHY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, D/B/A NINJA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11562 (D. Mass., May 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for selling a defective "Ninja" branded electric pressure cookers, including but not limited to the Foodi OP300 Series Multi-Function Pressure Cookers product line (the Products). The Products have a dangerously defective lid-locking assembly, allowing the lid to open while the contents of the cooker are under pressure during normal and expected use, so that its super-heated contents erupt from the cooker. This scalds consumers with second-degree and third-degree burns (the Defect). The Defendant has been aware of the Defect, which is dangerous, for years, but Defendant fraudulently concealed the Defect, failed to disclose it, and continued to sell Products that had the defective lid-locking assembly, the suit alleges. SharkNinja Operating LLC provides electronic products. The Company manufactures and wholesales variety of home and kitchen electrical appliances. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett Lee, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A. 155 Federal Street, Suite 1502 Boston, MA 02110 Tel. (857)383-4906 Email: glee@forthepeople.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313)303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. Colin Losey, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Ave, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 846-3862 Email: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com colin.losey@forthepeople.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Email: Sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Bid to File Class Cert Response Due June 25 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McKever, et al., v. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc. (SEFL), Case No. 3:24-cv-06170 (D.S.C., Filed Oct. 23, 2024), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply. Response to motion to Certify Class due by June 25, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.). SEFL is a privately owned American less than truckload (LTL) trucking company based in Lexington, South Carolina.[CC] SOUTHERN VALLEY: Garcia-Ramos Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNULFO GARCIA-RAMOS, PABLO CASTILLO-OLGUIN, and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT & VEGETABLE, INC.; HAMILTON GROWERS, INC.; KENT HAMILTON; HAMILTON PRODUCE, L.P.; KENDA PROPERTIES, L.P.; WK HOLDINGS, LLC; and WKW, LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-00054-WLS (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class and two subclasses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), declaring that the Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives, and appointing class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs seek Rule 23 class certification for the claims set forth in Counts III, IV, and V of their Complaint for breach of contract, violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"), and fraud. The proposed main class and subclasses are: Class I (Wage Claim Class), represented by Plaintiffs Arnulfo Garcia-Ramos and Pablo Castillo-Olguin, is defined as: "All individuals who were employed by the Defendants- regardless of visa status-as forklift operators, maintenance workers, or sanitation workers in the packing shed warehouses between Mar. 29, 2018 and Dec. 31, 2024, during workweeks when the Defendant Hamilton Growers, Inc. was certified to employ H-2A workers. Class II (H-2A Reimbursement Class), represented by Plaintiffs Arnulfo Garcia-Ramos and Pablo Castillo-Olguin, is a subclass of the Wage Claim Class and is defined as: "All individuals admitted as H-2A temporary foreign workers and employed by the Defendants as forklift operators, maintenance workers, or sanitation workers in the packing shed warehouses between Mar. 29, 2018 and Dec. 31, 2024." Class III (AWPA Class), represented by Plaintiff Arnulfo Garcia-Ramos, is also a subclass of the Wage Claim class and is defined as: "All individuals who were employed by the Defendants as forklift operators, maintenance workers, or sanitation workers in the packing shed warehouses between Mar. 29, 2018 and Dec. 31, 2024, during workweeks when the Defendant Hamilton Growers, Inc. was not certified to employ H-2A workers." Southern produces crops for food consumptions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ymrhG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Knoepp, Esq. Dawson Morton, Esq. DAWSON MORTON, LLC 1612 Crestwood Drive Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (828) 379-3169 E-mail: jim@dawsonmorton.com dawson@dawsonmorton.com SOUTHSIDE WRECKER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rickett Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIC RICKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHSIDE WRECKER, INC.; and RONNY NEW, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00832 (W.D. Tex., May 30, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Rickett was employed by the Defendants as a tow truck driver. Southside Wrecker, Inc. owns and operates a tow truck business located in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com SUNRUN INC: Class Cert Bid in Lopresti Suit Due Sept. 10, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH LOPRESTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNRUN INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00517-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting schedules for briefing on motions for summary judgment and for class certification: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings: June 24, 2025 Expert disclosures: March 10, 2026 Fact and expert discovery deadline: April 30, 2026 Mediation deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Dispositive motions due: May 29, 2026 Class certification motion due: Sept. 10, 2026 Class certification opposition due: Oct. 8, 2026 Class certification reply due: Oct. 29, 2026 Sunrun is an American provider of photovoltaic systems and battery energy storage products, primarily for residential customers. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GTFxpn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 3471 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. Glenn T. Graham, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP One Jefferson Road, Floor 2 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com ggraham@kelleydrye.com SUNRUN INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 10, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH LOPRESTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNRUN INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00517-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order setting schedules for briefing on motions for summary judgment and for class certification: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings: June 24, 2025 Expert disclosures: March 10, 2026 Expert rebuttal: April 7, 2026 Fact and expert discovery deadline: April 30, 2026 Mediation deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Dispositive motions due: May 29, 2026 Dispositive motion oppositions due: June 26, 2026 Dispositive motion replies due: July 17, 2026 Dispositive motion hearing: Aug. 6, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Class certification motion due: Sept. 10, 2026 Class certification opposition due: Oct. 8, 2026 Class certification reply due: Oct. 29, 2026 Sunrun designs, develops, installs, sells, owns, and maintains residential solar energy systems in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oh7qua at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 1650 Market Street, Suite 4800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 501-7002 Facsimile: (215) 405-2973. E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. Glenn T. Graham, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP One Jefferson Road, Floor 2 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com ggraham@kelleydrye.com SWEET BASIL: Liu Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEN LIN LIU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. SWEET BASIL FAIRFIELD LLC d/b/a Sweet Basil Sushi & Pan Asian Cuisine, CHUN YIU KWOK a/k/a Skye Kwok, VINCENT WENG, SHENGLIANG WENG, and MEI WENG, Case No. 3:24-cv-01436-JCH (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order motion for conditional collective certification. Specifically ,the Plaintiff seeks for an Order: (1) granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and last name, last known address with apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e- mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and position of ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any time from Sept. 8, 2021 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later"; (3) authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from the Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from existing employment records; (4) authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of dissemination of the notice and its translation; (5) authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice on the Plaintiff's counsel's website; (6) authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may also be published to social media groups specifically targeting the Chinese, English, and Spanish-speaking American immigrant worker community. Sweet is a Pan-Asian restaurant featuring a sushi bar plus sake, imported beers & cocktails. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FKj0XU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd #110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 TEXASCARSDIRECT.COM LTD: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JADE WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEXASCARSDIRECT.COM, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00595-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., June 2, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Texascarsdirect.com, Ltd. is a car dealership based in Dallas, TX, specializing in the sale of pre-owned vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com TRANS UNION: Christian Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY CHRISTIAN, LESLIE RICHARDSON, JOSE ALBERTO ALEMAN LOPEZ, MICHELLE FYDA, MADISON ELLIOTT, and JENNIFER APARICIO, for themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (i) certifying this action to proceed as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); (ii) appointing the Plaintiffs Ricky Christian, Jose Alberto Aleman Lopez, Michelle Fyda, Madison Elliott, and Jennifer Aparicio to serve as Class Representatives; and (iii) appointing Berger Montague PC and Kelly Guzzo, PLC as Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Trans Union operates as a global information and insights company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H1DUJm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. Zachary M. Vaughan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4656 E-mail: scarson@bm.net emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net zvaughan@bm.net - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com TRANS UNION: Christian Seeks To Seal Unredacted Class Cert Memo --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY CHRISTIAN, LESLIE RICHARDSON, JOSE ALBERTO ALEMAN LOPEZ, MICHELLE FYDA, MADISON ELLIOTT and JENNIFER APARICIO, for themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to seal unredacted Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of motion for class certification, and Exhibits 1-13, 15-24, 27, and 28 to the Declaration of E. Michelle Drake. The Defendant does not contest this motion or the relief sought herein. On March 8, 2023, this Court entered a Protective Order governing the disclosure and use of confidential and highly confidential information. Under the terms of the Protective Order, when a party is filing "(a) any Confidential Information, or (b) any pleading or other Document making any reference to the specific content of Confidential Information," that party shall file a motion for an order permitting filing under seal, in accordance with the Court’ procedures and requirements for such filings. Unredacted Plaintiffs' Memorandum in support of Motion for Class Certification, and Exhibits 1-13, 15-24, 27, and 28 to the Declaration of E. Michelle Drake all either cite to, quote from, or otherwise reference documents designated as Confidential Information by Defendant. Therefore, in accordance with the Protective Order in this matter, the Plaintiffs submit this Motion to file those documents under seal. Contemporaneously with this request, Plaintiffs are publicly filing redacted versions where possible. Pursuant to L. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a), a proposed order granting this motion is attached hereto. Trans Union operates as a global information and insights company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IaHufO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. Zachary M. Vaughan, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net zvaughan@bm.net scarson@bm.net - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com TRANS UNION: Christian Suit Seeks to Seal Unredacted Exhibit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY CHRISTIAN, LESLIE RICHARDSON, JOSE ALBERTO ALEMAN LOPEZ, MICHELLE FYDA, MADISON ELLIOTT, and JENNIFER APARICIO, for themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order sealing unredacted exhibit 29 to the declaration of E. Michelle Drake in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Exhibit 29 includes confidential pricing information for third party JND Legal Administration, which has asked that this proprietary and sensitive information be filed under seal. See Declaration of Jennifer M. Keough, ¶¶ 2-3. Contemporaneously with this request, the Plaintiffs are publicly filing a redacted version. As required by Local Rule 7.1(a), a proposed order granting this motion is attached hereto. Trans Union operates as a global information and insights company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BD4si1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. Zachary M. Vaughan, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net zvaughan@bm.net scarson@bm.net - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com UNITED STATES: Hagans Seeks for Writ of Habeas Corpus ----------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against the United States Parole Commission. The case is captioned as HAGANS v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION et al, Case No. 1:25-cv-01671 (D.D.C., May 26, 2025) The case is brought over Plaintiff's request for writ of habeas corpus. The United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hanna Perry, Esq. Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 579-0633 E-mail: hperry@pdsdc.org US NURSING CORPORATION: Court Stays Rubel Case Pending Resolution ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEIDI RUBEL; OLGA MALYSHEVA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. U.S. NURSING CORPORATION; FASTAFF, LLC; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 1:23-cv-01664-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Thurston entered an order approving stipulation to stay case pending resolution of proposed intervenors' class certification motion and to hold motion for intervention in abeyance. 1. The Stipulation is approved, and the stay is granted. 2. This Action shall be stayed in its entirety pending resolution of Proposed Intervenors' Motion for Class Certification of State Law Overtime Claims in Egan, et al. v. Fastaff, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03364-CYC (D. Colo.). 3. Within 14 days of the resolution of Proposed Intervenors' Class Certification Motion in Egan, the Parties shall submit a joint status report regarding the outcome of the Motion and with a proposed briefing schedule on the Motion to Intervene, if appropriate. 4. Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene and to Dismiss Claims or Stay Proceedings Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule, filed on May 6, 2025, is held in abeyance until further notice, and the deadline to file opposition papers is vacated. U.S. Nursing provides healthcare staffing services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RDdWYq at no extra charge.[CC] VIASAT INC: Faces Brostin TCPA Class Suit in M.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against ViaSat, Inc. The case is styled as Bronstin v. ViaSat, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00927-KMN (M.D. Pa., May 26, 2025). The case is brought over Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). ViaSat, Inc. provides satellite broadband services and secure networking systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq, PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com VITAL AMINE: Faces Blackett Suit Over Protein Supplement Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- CAMILLA BLACKETT, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. VITAL AMINE INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05217 (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2025) alleges that the Defendant created and/or authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements, packaging, and labeling for the Ora Organic Daily Superfood protein supplements. Accordingly, the Defendant markets its Products in a systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting the quantity and quality of the protein contained in the Products. Specifically, the Defendant's Products are comprised of vegan protein sources that do not provide the same nutritional benefits as whey protein, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff purchased the chocolate-flavored Product for her personal use during the applicable statute of limitations while residing in Los Angeles, California. Defendant has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold the Product to consumers throughout the United States and the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaneil Haim Sair, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC. 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-Mail: adrian@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: $1.013MM Class Settlement Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CESAR HERNANDEZ, v. WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES LLC, a domestic limited liability company, Case No. 8:24-cv-00897-WFJ-NHA (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Jung entered an order of final approval of class action settlement: The Court confirms its certification of the following class and sub-class, for settlement purposes, under Rule 23(b)(3): The Class: "All consumers residing in the State of Florida who were mailed at least one collection letter from Defendant Wakefield regarding a past due medical debt owed to Defendant Inphynet, which sought an additional interest charge in excess of the principal balance from two (2) years before the filing of the operative complaint until Sept. 19, 2024." The Interest Sub-Class: "Those individuals within the Class defined above who paid the Defendant Wakefield an amount in excess of the principal balance of the debt." The Court additionally finds that the Parties' settlement, on the terms and conditions set forth in their Agreement, is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members. The Settlement Fund of $87,500, automatic interest refunds, and approximately $1,013,000.00. The Court approves the payment of $3,000.00 to Plaintiff in individual statutory damages under the FDCPA and FCCPA. The Court reconfirms as reasonable the agreed award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in the total amount of $75,000.00. Defendants shall issue payment for the amounts approved herein in the manner set forth in the Agreement. The Lawsuit is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all other issues and as to all parties and claims. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. The Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties and all matters relating to this matter, including the administration, interpretation, construction, effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the settlement and this order. Wakefield is a debt collection agency that focuses on collecting debt for various organizations, particularly in the healthcare sector. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OVEVAs at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Thurner Sues Over Mislabeled Diaper Rash Ointments --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA THURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. Case 2:25-cv-01530-SCR (E.D. Cal., June 2, 2025) alleges the Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells a mislabeled diaper rash ointment called Parent's Choice Diaper Rash Ointment (the "Product"), which the front of the Product packaging prominently states that it is "Hypoallergenic." According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression they are buying a premium product that is hypoallergenic. Defendant uses the "Hypoallergenic" branding strategy and labeling claim as the primary feature differentiating the Product from other similar products in the marketplace. The Plaintiff, who purchased the Product at a local Walmart in San Joaquin County California, was deceived by Defendant's unlawful and deceptive conduct and brings this action individually and on behalf of California consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful and deceptive acts. As a result, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact when she spent money to purchase the Product she would not have purchased or would have paid less for absent Defendant's misconduct, says the suit. Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler, games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party supplies, and automotive tools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: jmacpherson@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com WOLFE CONSTRUCTION: Perez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Ana Perez, Plaintiff v. Wolfe Construction Group, Inc., d/b/a Wolfe Painting and Remodeling, and Robert C. Wolfe, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61043-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Perez as a non-exempt, full-time, hourly employee from approximately February 01, 2024, to September 20, 2024, or 33 weeks. During the relevant employment period, the Plaintiff worked 16 weeks of 40 and 17 weeks of 48 hours. However, the Plaintiff did not receive overtime pay for the additional eight hours, in violation of federal law. In addition to failing to pay overtime, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff timely wages, accumulating three unpaid weeks with a total of 105 hours, says the suit. Wolfe Construction is a full-service construction and remodeling company in Oakland Park, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com XTO ENERGY: John McArthur's Opinions Excluded in Kriley Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY, et al., v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher B. Brown entered an order granting motion to exclude John Burritt Mcarthur's legal opinions regarding class certification. The putative class action was initiated by Plaintiffs, a group of individuals who are leaseholders of oil and gas leases, against Defendant XTO Energy Inc alleging breached their leases when it deducted unreasonable and excessive post-production costs from their royalty payments XTO is an American energy company and subsidiary of ExxonMobil. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rt4zra at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***