250618.mbx

250618.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 121 Headlines AJAY GLASS: Parties in Louis Suit Must File Joint Status Report AJAY GLASS: Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosure Due June 19 AKEELA INC: Mcrorie Case Stayed Until July 18 ALPHA PRIME: Brownie Bites Contain Fewer Protein, Ruchman Alleges AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Conspires to Suppress Wages, Tuncay Says AMERICAN FAMILY: Hacker Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal AMERICAN FAMILY: Hacker Suit Seeks Class Certification AMERICAN NATIONAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Scott Claims AMERICAN PHOENIX: Class Cert. Bids in Charles Suit Due July 16 ANOTHER BROKEN: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ARCNV INC: Faces Paige Suit Over Salon Managers' Unpaid Wages AT&T INC: Initial OK of $177MM Class Settlement Sought BCE-MACH III LLC: Sagacity Seeks to Certify Settlement Class BIG ROCK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges BRADFORD HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hussey Alleges BRANHAVEN MOTORS: Alfano Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info BROOKLYN BEDDING: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Phillips Due Sept. 15 CARE PLUS: Waddell Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages CBIZ BENEFITS: Court Narrows Claims in Giddings Suit CHARLES SCHWAB: Redic Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settles Factory Wage Class Lawsuit For $1.2MM CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Court Excludes Jena and Lally Testimony COINBASE INC: Rahman Sues Over Unsecured Clients' Personal Info COMMUNITY CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gates Alleges CONNEXION POINT: Bid to Transfer Venue Tossed CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Surreply COOPER HEALTH: Simonds Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info COVENANT HEALTH: Faces New Class Suit Over Cybersecurity Breach CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Bid for Protective Order Granted in D & N Suit EHPLABS LLC: Chavez Sues Over Plant Protein Powder's Deceptive Ads FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Directs Unsealing of Certain Exhibits FIRST RELIANCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Clark Suit Says GC PIZZA: Settlement in Rodriguez Gets Final Nod GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Beauchamp Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Mich. GMET COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graham Alleges GOLDMAN FINANCIAL: Court Allows Plaintiff to Take Discovery GOOGLE LLC: Judge Rejects Privacy Class Action Lawsuit GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: July 22 Final Pretrial Conference Vacated HARBIN CLINIC: Fails to Protect Personal and Health Info, Nash Says HCA HEALTHCARE: McRee Seeks Conditional Status of Collective HESS CORP: Must File Class Cert in Wagner Response by June 16 HPG PIZZA: Seeks Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Breach of Contract Claims HSBC BANK: Seeks to Amend Class Certification Order in Cheng Suit INFINIWELL INC: Walsh Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind IONIC DIGITAL: Board Reduction Invalid, Del. Chancery Court Says JBS LIVE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime KINYA HOLDING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Claude Alleges KISWIRE INC: Bedenbaugh Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Hamilton Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd KOD ATLANTA: Bishop Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification LANGER JUICE: Faces Arres Suit Over Juice Products' False Labels LESSEREVIL LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 10, 2026 LEXISNEXIS RISK: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 17 LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Hicks Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info LORETTO HEALTH: Filing for Class Certification Extended to Oct. 9 LUCERO AG SERVICES: Court Awards Ortiz, et al., $950 in Atty's Fees MAGHSOOD ABBASZADEH: Court Dismisses Walker SAC MARINE PRODUCTS: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Taylor Suit Alleges MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification MDL 3108: Defendants' Notice Misleading, Court Says MEATBALL MANAGEMENT: Liz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store META PLATFORMS: Secretly Spy Users' Browsing Activity, Martin Says MICRODENTAL LAB: Class Cert Hearing in Provost Due May 21, 2026 MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Seeks Initial OK of Proposed Settlement MY FAIR LADY: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Liberty Sues Over Unfair Cash Sweep Program PATRIOT'S PROMISE: Hunter Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, AMWA PEPGEN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 8 PJ CHEESE: Pays Delivery Drivers Below Minimum Wage, Crawford Says PLJ REST: Castaneda Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NYLL PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod RB GLOBAL: Controls Construction Equipment Rental Prices, Suit Says RECKITT BENCKISER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 4 SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Islas Alleges SERVOTRONICS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With TransDigm SKLAR LAW: Class Certification Bids in Green Amended to August 29 SOGOTRADE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hou Says SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Lawsuit SPOTHERO INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Pricing Practices ST. LUKES HOSPITAL: Devaney Seeks Wages & OT Under FLSA, PMWA TTEC SERVICES: Jenkins Sues Over Failure to Provide Proper Wages UNITED STATES: Valuta Corp. Balks at Unfair Surveillance Order VETERANS AFFAIRS: Court Rejects Cy Pres Relief in Nehmer Case VICTORIA'S SECRET: Fails to Protect Customers' PII, Burke Suit Says WATER WIPES: Merlo Sues Over Baby Wipes' False "Plastic-Free" Label WINE.COM INC: Faces Wilson Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website XCLUSIVE TRADING: Junani Balks at Unpaid OT, Straight-Time Wages ********* AJAY GLASS: Parties in Louis Suit Must File Joint Status Report --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis v. Ajay Glass & Mirror Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00462 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Brindisi entered an order granting joint letter motion insofar as and to the extent that the schedules and deadlines as set forth in text order are adjourned without date and will be reset by the court once a decision on motion to certify class has been issued. -- The parties are directed to file a joint status report within 7 days of decision on motion proposing to the Court new Schedules. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Ajay operates as a glass wall system contractors.[CC] AJAY GLASS: Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosure Due June 19 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis et al., v. Ajay Glass & Mirror Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00462-AJB-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting request that all remaining discovery and dispositive motion deadlines be adjourned sine die until after resolution of Plaintiffs’ pending motion for conditional certification. More specifically, pursuant to the Court’s Text Order dated February 12, 2025, the following deadlines apply: (1) Plaintiffs' expert disclosure is due by June 19, 2025; (2) Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due by June 30, 2025; (3) Defendants' expert disclosure is due by Aug. 1, 2025; (4) rebuttal expert disclosure is due by Aug. 18, 2025; (5) all discovery, including depositions, shall be completed by Sept. 15, 2025; and (6) dispositive motions shall be filed by Nov. 15, 2025. However, the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is unlikely to be decided until after one or more of the foregoing deadlines passes. And resolution of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification will inform the parties as to the proper scope of additional discovery, expert disclosures, and dispositive motions. Ajay operates as a glass wall system contractors. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T8sua1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S. Giaimo, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 Facsimile: (212) 448–0066 E-mail: jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com AKEELA INC: Mcrorie Case Stayed Until July 18 --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mcrorie v. Akeela, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00174 (D. Alaska, Filed Aug. 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered an order that the case is stayed until July 18, 2025. -- The parties shall file either a joint status report or the Plaintiff shall move for preliminary approval of class certification no later than July 18, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Akeela offers an array of mental health and treatment services in Alaska's largest city, including residential treatment programs, outpatient treatment programs.[CC] ALPHA PRIME: Brownie Bites Contain Fewer Protein, Ruchman Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL JAMES RUCHMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. ALPHA PRIME SUPPS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 5:25-cv-01442 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2025) is a class action against Alpha Prime alleging that all flavors of its protein brownie bites (banana nut, glazed chocolate doughnut, cinnamon roll, chocolate cookie monster, peanut butter chocolate, cookie dough, birthday cake blondie, blueberry cobbler, and cookies 'n cream flavors, collectively, the Products), which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised because they contain far fewer grams of protein per serving than stated upon their labels. Plaintiff Ruchman attempted to eat a healthy diet in order to maintain his weight and meet fitness goals and tracks his protein intake as part of his fitness plan. He purchased (1) the cookie dough flavor of the Products from the Vitamin Shoppe website on or about May 22, 2024; (2) the blueberry cobbler flavor of the Products from the Vitamin Shoppe website on or about November 2, 2023; and (3) the blueberry cobbler flavor of the Products from the Vitamin Shoppe website on or about October 29, 2023. The Plaintiff believes and avers that he purchased the Products at other times during the Class period but has not retained receipts for those purchases. The Defendant is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business and headquarters in Sunrise, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Conspires to Suppress Wages, Tuncay Says -------------------------------------------------------------- METE ENDER TUNCAY, DVM on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF VETERINARY CLINICIANS, SOLUTION INNOVATIONS, INC., AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF VETERINARY MEDICAL COLLEGES, THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCATION, VCA ANIMAL HOSPITALS, INC., ETHOS VETERINARY HEALTH LLC, PATHWAY VET ALLIANCE, LLC D/B/A THRIVE PET HEALTHCARE, MEDVET ASSOCIATES, LLC, TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, TRUSTEES OF TUFTS COLLEGE, TUFTS UNIVERSITY CUMMINGS SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, THE COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, OSU COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, and TEXAS A&M COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE, Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-00369-EKD-CKM (W.D. Va., May 30, 2025) seeks treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees for Defendants' violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks to enjoin Defendants from continuing their unlawful conspiracy. According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a long-standing, nationwide conspiracy to depress compensation for veterinary interns and residents. As a result of Defendants' conspiracy, veterinary interns and residents endure poor working conditions, long hours, and compensation that often falls below a living wage. Veterinary interns and residents experience unusually high rates of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation, often associated with workload demands and financial insecurity. The complaint further notes that the Defendants design, implement, and/or participate in the Veterinary Internship and Residency Matching Program. Through the Match Program, the Defendants restrain competition in the recruitment, hiring, and employment of veterinary interns and residents. The Match Program consists of a centralized allocation system that assigns veterinary resident and intern applicants to a single, specific position at an employer that participates in the program, and contractually mandates their acceptance of that position. It prohibits all salary negotiations between applicants and prospective employers, enforces strict limitations on applicant mobility and choice, and implements policing mechanisms to compel compliance with these restraints. The intended and actual effect of Defendants' conspiracy has been to suppress wages and worsen working conditions for Plaintiff and similarly situated veterinary interns and residents. The Defendants' conspiracy maximizes the profits of Defendant employers by reducing labor costs, alleges the suit. The Defendants are for-profit veterinary practices and companies, veterinary teaching institutions, and veterinary associations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosalie Pemberton, Esq. Fessier Virginia, Esq. TIMBERLAKESMITH 25 North Central Avenue P.O. Box 108 Staunton, VA 24402-0108 Telephone: (540) 885-1517 Facsimile: (540) 885-4537 E-mail: rfessier@timberlakesmith.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Julie A. Pollock, Esq. Hope Brinn, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bm.net jpollock@bm.net hbrinn@bm.net - and - Steven F. Molo, Esq. Cody A. Wiles, Esq. MOLOLAMKEN LLP 430 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 607-5951 E-mail: smolo@mololamken.com cwiles@mololamken.com - and - Eric A. Posner, Esq. MOLOLAMKEN LLP 300 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 5350 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 450-6700 E-mail: eposner@mololamken.com - and - Eric Nitz, Esq. MOLOLAMKEN LLP 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 556-2000 E-mail: enitz@mololamken.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Hacker Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Craig Hacker, v. American Family Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01936-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting him to file Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the expert reports under seal. The Plaintiff has conferred with Defendant regarding its confidentiality designations and Defendant has withdrawn its confidentiality designation as to Exhibit 81 of the Declaration of John M. DeStefano in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. To avoid having to prematurely disclose his brief and expert reports to Defendant, Plaintiff files those documents provisionally under seal. The Defendant has agreed to this proposal and will identify which portions of the brief and expert reports Defendant contends should be redacted from the public filing in its Response to this motion. Plaintiff currently takes no position on the sealing of these materials and reserves the right to challenge the Defendant's designations at a later point in this litigation. American offers car, home, life, and business insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WtB6kA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Carey, Esq. John DeStefano, Esq. Tory Beardsley, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com johnd@hbsslaw.com toryb@hbsslaw.com - and - Brett L. Slavicek, Esq. James Fucetola, Esq. Justin Henry, Esq. THE SLAVICEK LAW FIRM 5500 North 24th Street Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 285-4435 Facsimile: (602) 287-9184 E-mail: brett@slaviceklaw.com james@slaviceklaw.com justin@slaviceklaw.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Hacker Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Craig Hacker, v. American Family Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01936-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. American offers car, home, life, and business insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1HATWL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Carey, Esq. John DeStefano, Esq. Tory Beardsley, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com johnd@hbsslaw.com toryb@hbsslaw.com - and - Brett L. Slavicek, Esq. James Fucetola, Esq. Justin Henry, Esq. THE SLAVICEK LAW FIRM 5500 North 24th Street Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 285-4435 Facsimile: (602) 287-9184 E-mail: brett@slaviceklaw.com james@slaviceklaw.com justin@slaviceklaw.com AMERICAN NATIONAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Scott Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN SCOTT and JULIAN CERNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-00052-O (N.D. Tex., June 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in January 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. American National Bank & Trust is a bank located in Wichita Falls, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com jellzey@eksm.com AMERICAN PHOENIX: Class Cert. Bids in Charles Suit Due July 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monte Charles v. American Phoenix, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00255 (W.D. Wisc., Filed April 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order that the next deadline in the case is July 16, 2025, which is for class certification motions. -- If the parties file their motion for preliminary approval on or before July 16, the court will strike that deadline and the remainder of the schedule. -- Otherwise, the schedule will remain in place. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). American Phoenix provides rubber mixing services. The Company offers custom processing and pre-weighed chemical packaging services for rubber industry.[CC] ANOTHER BROKEN: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- 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. 0:25-cv-60580-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its unopposed motion for the Defendant to file its response to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of collective action, up to and including June 30, 2025. The Plaintiff does not oppose the requested extension. The Defendant's counsel is traveling of the country from June 7, 2025, through June 15, 2025, and will have limited access to the internet. Moreover, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification requires analysis of complex areas of law. As such, the Defendant requires additional time to adequately develop its position for purposes of responding to the Plaintiff's motion. On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage and Hour Act. On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) The Defendant owns and operates a chain of restaurants. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ETRWaF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew J. Gagnon, Esq. Daniel E. Kalter, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 289-1247 Facsimile: (813) 289-6530 E-mail: matthew.gagnon@ogletree.com daniel.kalter@ogletree.com ARCNV INC: Faces Paige Suit Over Salon Managers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELETTA PAIGE, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARCNV, INC d/b/a ARCCO ENTERPRISES; REGIS CORPORATION d/b/a SMARTSTSYLES HAIR SALONS and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00954-CDS-DJA (D. Nev., May 30, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for unpaid wages and overtime pay, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under Nevada Revised Statutes and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay wages for each hour worked, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to timely pay all wages due and owing at separation of employment. Plaintiff Paige had worked at the Defendants' salon since October 2011 and had been salon manager for many years. She continued in this role, that was renamed from salon manager to salon leader, until approximately May 30, 2023. ARCNV does business as ARCCO Enterprises and runs hair salons in Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada as franchisees of Smart Style, Supercuts and Cost Cutters, which are all brands belonging to franchisor Regis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Kuller, Esq. Rachel Mariner, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Telephone: (725) 245-6056 Facsimile: (725) 220-1802 E-mail: jason@rafiilaw.com rachel@rafiilaw.com AT&T INC: Initial OK of $177MM Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit Re: AT&T Inc Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00757-E (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of class action settlement; (2) provisionally certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes; (3) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; (4) appointing Mark Lanier, Chris Seeger, Shauna Itri, Jean Martin, James Cecchi, and Sean Modjaard as AT&T 1 Class Counsel and J. Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Jeff Ostrow, and Jason S. Rathod as AT&T 2 Class Counsel; (5) appointing Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as the Settlement Administrator; (6) approving the Notices and the Notice Program; (7) approving the Claim Forms and the Claim Process; (8) establishing the opt-out and objection procedures and deadlines; (9) scheduling a Final Approval Hearing at which time the Court will consider whether to grant Final Approval of the Settlement and the Applications for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards; and (10) enjoining and staying the filing and prosecution of all state court and arbitration proceedings related to the Data Incidents. The Settlement Classes - The Settlement creates two settlement classes: the AT&T 1 Settlement Class and the AT&T 2 Settlement Class. The AT&T 1 Settlement Class is defined as: "All living persons in the United States whose AT&T 1 Data Elements were included in the AT&T 1 Data Incident." Excluded from the AT&T 1 Settlement Class are (a) AT&T, any entity in which AT&T has a controlling interest, and AT&T's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (b) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this Action, and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; (c) any persons who have Released Claims relating to the AT&T 1 Data Incident and/or the AT&T 1 Action prior to Final Approval; and (d) any persons who timely opt out of the AT&T 1 Settlement Class. The AT&T 2 Settlement Class is defined as: "AT&T Account Owners or Line or End Users whose AT&T 2 Data Elements were involved in the AT&T 2 Data Incident." Excluded from the AT&T 2 Settlement Class are (a) AT&T, any entity in which AT&T has a controlling interest, and AT&T's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (b) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this Action, and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; (c) any persons who have Released Claims relating to the AT&T 2 Data Incident and/or the AT&T 2 Action prior to Final Approval; and (d) any persons who timely opt-out of the AT&T 2 Settlement Class. The Settlement creates two non-reversionary all cash Settlement Funds totaling $177,000,000 ($149,000,000 for the benefit of the AT&T 1 Settlement Class and $28,000,000 for the benefit of the AT&T 2 Settlement Class) that will be used to pay Cash Payments to Settlement Class Members; all Settlement Administration Costs; and any Court-awarded attorneys’ fees, costs, and Service Awards. Agreement ¶¶ 39, 52. AT&T is in the business of providing wireless communication services, including voice, data, and messaging to consumers in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=23QO7a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 E-mail: mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Shauna Itri, Esq. SEEGER WEISS, LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 917 Philadelphia, PA 19106 E-mail: sitri@seegerweiss.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Jean Sutton Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N Franklin Street 6th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com - and - Sean S. Modjarrad, Esq. MODJARRAD ABUSAAD & SAID 212 W Spring Valley Road Richardson, TX 75081 Telephone: (972) 789-1664 E-mail: smodjarrad@mas.law - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - John Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839-9091 E-mail: john@lawmontana.com - and - Raphael Graybill, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, PC 300 4th Street North Great Falls, MT 59401 Telephone: (406) 452-8566 E-mail: raph@graybilllawfirm.com - and - J. Devlan Geddes, Esq. GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER P.C. 35 N. Grand Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 587-0618 E-mail: devlan@goetzlawfirm.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St NE, Suite 302 Washington DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com BCE-MACH III LLC: Sagacity Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sagacity, Inc., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BCE-Mach III LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00039-RAW-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to certify the settlement class for settlement purposes, to preliminarily approve the class action settlement, to approve the form and manner of notice, and to set a date for a final fairness hearing. Specifically, the Plaintiffs request that the Court: 1. Certify the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes consisting of: "All non-excluded persons or entities who are or were royalty owners in Oklahoma wells who received royalty payments from Mach III for the Claim Period for the Class Wells operated by Mach III" The Class claims relate to royalty payments for gas and its constituents (such as residue gas, natural gas liquids, helium, nitrogen, or drip condensate). Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) Mach III, its affiliates, pre-decessors, employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) publicly traded oil and gas companies and their affiliates; (4) Charles David Nutley, Danny George, Dan McClure, Kelly McClure Callant, C. Benjamin Nutley, White River Royalties, LLC, and their relatives, affiliates, successors, and assigns; (5) persons or entities that the Plaintiffs' counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; (6) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); and (7) officers of the Court"; 2. Preliminarily approve the Settlement; 3. Appoint the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; 4. Appoint Reagan E. Bradford and Ryan K. Wilson of Bradford & Wilson PLLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; 5. Approve the form and manner of the proposed Notice; 6. Appoint JND Legal Administration as Settlement Administrator; 7. Appoint MidFirst Bank as Escrow Agent; and 8. Set a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement and application for an award of the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and administration, notice, and distribution costs, and a case contribution award to the Plaintiffs. After two-and-a-half years of litigation, Plaintiffs have obtained a great recovery for the Settlement Class, reaching a settlement with Defendant worth $10,000,000 in cash for the Plaintiffs' class claims for royalty underpayment under Oklahoma law. The Plaintiffs now request that the Court preliminarily approve the classwide settlement. The Plaintiffs initiated this case with the filing of the Complaint on Jan. 30, 2023, in which they alleged that the Defendant had underpaid royalties owed on natural gas production in Oklahoma. The Defendant filed its Answer on March 9, 2023. The parties then engaged in extensive discovery, with Defendant producing over 5 million pages of documents and Plaintiffs producing hundreds of documents. Plaintiffs also issued 11 subpoenas, which resulted in over 78,000 pages of document production. The Plaintiffs further deposed four of the Defendant's witnesses, three of whom also served as corporate representatives on certain topics. BCE-Mach owns and operates pipelines and terminal facilities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TsbdF2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 Facsimile: (405) 234-5506 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com BIG ROCK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIG ROCK INDUSTRIES INC., dba BIG ROCK LANDSCAPING; AMERICAN BENEFITS COMPANY, INC.; RUSS TAYLOR; BRANDON HATCH; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00443 (D. Utah, June 3, 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 Diaz was employed by the Defendants as a framer. Big Rock Industries Inc., dba Big Rock Landscaping specializes in outdoor lighting which includes landscape lighting concepts, lighting installs, outdoor string light designs, and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. Austin D. Sork, Esq. SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC 1414 E. Murray Holladay Road Holladay UT 84117 Telephone: (833) 201-0213 Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com asork@shimodalaw.com BRADFORD HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hussey Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD HUSSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRADFORD HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. (N.D. Ala., June 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, medical information, and other personally identifiable information and for its failure to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that the integrity of their PII/PHI had been compromised. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the data breach occurred because the Defendant stored the electronic files containing the PII/PHI of Plaintiff and hundreds of thousands of other Class Members unguarded, unprotected, unencrypted, and otherwise vulnerable to unauthorized access and theft by unauthorized third parties. This Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Class Members' PII and PHI, says the suit. Bradford Health Services, LLC is headquartered in the United States. The company's line of business includes providing health and allied services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com BRANHAVEN MOTORS: Alfano Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info ------------------------------------------------------------ PAUL ALFANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRANHAVEN MOTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. _______ (Conn. Super., June 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, breach of confidence, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about September 9, 2024 through September 10, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Branhaven Motors, Inc. is an automotive dealership based in Branford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com BROOKLYN BEDDING: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Phillips Due Sept. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC and NIGHT US LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03781-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order setting the following case schedule through class certification: Case Event Deadline Fact Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 29, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 15, 2025 Opposition(s) to Class Certification: Nov. 3, 2025 Class Certification Reply: Nov. 24, 2025 Class Certification Hearing: Dec. 16, 2025 Brooklyn operates as a home furnishing store. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9yD1dP at no extra charge.[CC] CARE PLUS: Waddell Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- TANISHA WADDELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARE PLUS HEIGHTS ER LLC and CARE PLUS MONTROSE ER LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-02525 (S.D. Tex., May 30, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Waddell and other employees of Care Plus ERs worked at all Care Plus ERs' locations. These employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, when taking into account their work at all Care Plus ERs' locations. But Care Plus ERs treated each location as a separate employer under the FLSA. Under this scheme, Care Plus ERs did not pay Waddell and similarly situated employees overtime when they worked over 40 hours per week for the enterprise, says the suit. Plaintiff Waddell worked for the Care Plus ERs from August 2024 to February 2025. The Care Plus ERs own and operate emergency healthcare facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. Justin Vineyard, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law CBIZ BENEFITS: Court Narrows Claims in Giddings Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Giddings v. CBIZ Benefits & Insurance Services, Inc. (RE CBIZ DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01722-DCN (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Donald C. Nugent entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended (consolidated) class action complaint. The Plaintiffs have standing to assert this action and have stated a claim for Negligence in Count One of the Complaint. The Complaint does not adequately state a claim for Negligence Per Se, Invasion of Privacy, or Unjust Enrichment. Therefore, Counts Two through Four are dismissed with prejudice. The next status conference is set for June 10,2025 at 9:30 a.m., by telephone. Finally, the benefit, if any, that the Plaintiffs were to receive by permitting their information to be stored by CBIZ was access to benefits through their employers. The Plaintiffs do not claim that they contracted, bargained for, or relied on any other benefit from CBIZ, and there are no allegations that Plaintiffs failed to receive the benefits their employers obtained for them using CBIZ's services. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts that could plausibly support a claim for just enrichment against the Defendant. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is filed as Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleging that CBIZ Benefits & Insurance Services, Inc. ("CBIZ") negligently failed to use reasonable means to secure and prevent disclosure of the Plaintiffs' sensitive personal identifying information ("PII"). CBIZ offers auditing, taxation, and accounting services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0E6SAw at no extra charge.[CC] CHARLES SCHWAB: Redic Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ CIARA REDIC, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01363 (N.D. Tex., May 30, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor conduct in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the FLSA in that Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an exempt employee and in so doing failed to pay Plaintiff at time and one half the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant during the three years prior to the filing of this suit and from approximately July 2023 until May 2025. The Charles Schwab Corporation is an American multinational financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 11300 North Central Expressway, Ste 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settles Factory Wage Class Lawsuit For $1.2MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that The Cheesecake Factory agreed to pay $1.208 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it failed to disclose wage ranges in job postings. The Cheesecake Factory class action settlement benefits individuals who applied for a job opening in Washington with The Cheesecake Factory between Jan. 1, 2023, and March 24, 2025, where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range for the position and who were not hired. According to the Cheesecake Factory class action lawsuit, the company failed to disclose wage ranges in job postings for open positions. This practice allegedly violated Washington law. The Cheesecake Factory is a restaurant chain that serves a variety of foods, including cheesecake. The company has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Cheesecake Factory wage class action settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of participating class members. According to the settlement agreement, each class member could receive approximately $1,318.94 if the court approves the proposed fees and expenses. However, this amount may change based on the number of participating class members and other factors. Settlement payments will be classified as non-wage statutory damages and interest, which may have tax consequences for class members. Class members may wish to consult with a tax professional about the potential consequences of accepting a settlement payment. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 20, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Cheesecake Factory settlement is scheduled for July 11, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 20, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who applied for a job opening in Washington with The Cheesecake Factory between Jan. 1, 2023, and March 24, 2025, where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range for the position and who were not hired. Potential Award Up to $1,318.94, subject to number of total claimants and other factors. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/20/2025 Case Name Lowe v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants Inc., Case No. 23-2-20277-5 SEA, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. Final Hearing 07/11/2025 Settlement Website TCFRISettlement.com Claims Administrator Lowe v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants Inc. c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 26170 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@TCFRISettlement.com (888) 369-3780 Class Counsel Timothy W. Emery Patrick B. Reddy Paul Cipriani EMERY REDDY PLLC Defense Counsel Carolyn E. Sieve CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP [GN] CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Court Excludes Jena and Lally Testimony --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONNIE HOMYK, et al., v. CHEMOCENTRYX, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-03343-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order resolving motions to exclude: The Court grants Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the testimony of Anupam Jena and Lindsay Lally. The Court denies Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Matthew Cain. And the Court grants in part and denies in part, consistent with the discussion in this order, Defendants' motions to exclude the testimony of David Madigan, Simon Helfgott, and Alan Bonder, and Plaintiff’s motions to exclude the testimony of Anisha Dua, Naga Chalasani, Steven Weisman, Robert Gibbons, and Carl Seiden. IT IS SO ORDERED. Lead Plaintiff Indiana Public Retirement System brings this action individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired ChemoCentryx common stock between November 26, 2019, and May 6, 2021, inclusive (“Class Period”). Plaintiff alleges that ChemoCentryx and Dr. Schall, its President and Chief Executive Officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements and omissions about the safety, efficacy, and application for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a proprietary vasculitis drug called avacopan, thereby artificially inflating the price of ChemoCentryx stock during the Class Period. ChemoCentryx is a pharmaceutical company specializing in drugs designed to treat rare diseases. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aHNjTy at no extra charge.[CC] COINBASE INC: Rahman Sues Over Unsecured Clients' Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- AARON RAHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE, INC. and COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04577 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of Section 349 of New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach learned on May 11, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Coinbase, Inc. is a company that operates a cryptocurrency exchange, with its principal executive offices located at One Madison Avenue, Suite 2400, New York, New York. Coinbase Global, Inc. is the parent company of Coinbase, Inc., with its principal executive offices located at One Madison Avenue, Suite 2400, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven P. Sukert, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: sukert@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com COMMUNITY CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gates Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JAQUETTA GATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF ABERDEEN, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00087 (N.D. Miss., June 3, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Gates was employed by the Defendant as a nursing assistant. Community Care Center of Aberdeen, LLC is a health care community offering individuals a place to recover, rehabilitate and/or reside, depending on their specific needs. [BN] 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 Email: jack@simpson-pllc.com CONNEXION POINT: Bid to Transfer Venue Tossed --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARYANN CRUZ individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CONNEXION POINT, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, and INTEGRITY, LLC, f/k/a INTEGRITY MARKETING GROUP, a Texas Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00966-TC-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to transfer venue. The court finds that all but one of the section 1404(a) factors weigh against transfer to the Northern District of Texas. In sum, even if the Defendants had preserved their personal jurisdiction argument, the court is persuaded that it has general jurisdiction over both Defendants. The Plaintiff Maryann Cruz brings this wage and hour employment action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals against Defendants Connexion Point, LLC (CXP) and Integrity LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq. Ms. Cruz requests to bring her claim as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), allowing all Customer Care Representatives (CCRs) (or others bearing similar job titles or job duties) to opt into this action as co-plaintiffs. Ms. Cruz alleges that the Defendants require their CCRs to perform compensable work off-the-clock outside of their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods, therefore withholding overtime pay for hours worked outside of the standard forty-hour week. Ms. Cruz worked for the Defendants between Sept. 10, 2024 and Dec. 9, 2024. Connexion develops and builds technology solutions. A copy of the Court's memorandum decision and order dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zqo4EM at no extra charge.[CC] CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Surreply ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY JOHNSON, v. CONTINENTAL FINANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-02001-PX (D. Md.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file surreply in further opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for emergency class certification and curative notice. Continental's proposed Surreply responds to the Plaintiffs' new assertions by explaining that they are forfeited and unpersuasive even on their own terms. The Surreply addresses no other issue and spans just under five substantive pages. Its filing would therefore "not implicate the Court's general concern for voluminous and repetitive pleadings." The Plaintiffs filed their Emergency Motion for Class Certification and Curative Notice on April 28, 2025. The supporting memorandum did not contend that the existence or enforceability of Plaintiffs' Cardholder Agreement (aside from its arbitration provisions) was a consideration that could satisfy any of Rule 23’s requirements for class certification. Continental is a marketer and servicer of credit cards issued by partner banks for consumers with less-than-perfect credit. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y1xy1O at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Fredrick S. Levin, Esq. John B. Williams III, Esq. Ali Abugheida, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 120 Broadway, 4th Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 633-2800 Facsimile: (310) 633-2849 E-mail: flevin@orrick.com JWilliams@orrick.com aabugheida@orrick.com COOPER HEALTH: Simonds Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHESTER SIMONDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06240 (D.N.J., May 30, 2025) is a class action against Cooper for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Cooper patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information from criminal hackers. Based on the notice sent to Plaintiff and Class Members, unusual activity was detected on some of Defendant's computer systems. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation. Cooper's investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained sensitive patient information, and that such access took place in or around May 2024. Yet, Cooper waited 12 months to notify the public that they were at risk, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Cooper's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, and declaratory judgment. The Cooper Health System, based in Camden, is a healthcare system that serves thousands of patients in New Jersey and the surrounding states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Spitz, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: jspitz@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com COVENANT HEALTH: Faces New Class Suit Over Cybersecurity Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Covenant Health is facing a class-action lawsuit following a cybersecurity breach that forced multiple hospitals in Maine to take their systems offline. Covenant Health operates St. Mary's Health System in Lewiston and St. Joseph Healthcare in Bangor. On May 25, the company detected unusual activity in its networks and shut down access to hospital data systems across its facilities. The lawsuit, filed June 9, Monday in Penobscot County by Michael McClain, accuses Covenant Health of failing to protect patients' private information. The complaint alleges that hospital leaders employed ineffective and low-cost security systems to safeguard personal data. The company has not confirmed whether any patient information was compromised and declined to comment on the pending lawsuit. Central Maine Healthcare, which includes Central Maine Medical Center, Bridgton Hospital, and Rumford Hospital, also reported a cyber incident shortly after Covenant. Both hospital systems temporarily shut down their computer networks. It remains unclear whether the two incidents are connected or carried out by the same group. MaineHealth, the state's largest healthcare provider, severed digital ties with both systems "out of an abundance of caution." Its leaders say they do not believe MaineHealth's own systems were affected. Covenant says it has hired outside cybersecurity experts to investigate and restore system access and has encouraged patients to keep existing appointments. [GN] CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Bid for Protective Order Granted in D & N Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D & N Farms, LLC, et al., v. Crawley Petroleum Corporation, Case No. 6:23-cv-00234 (E.D. Okla., Filed July 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge Ronald A. White entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for protective order. Topic Numbers 2,4, & 6 in the Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition notice shall be quashed as duplicative or can be obtained from some other source. Quashing these topics will not prejudice Plaintiffs as the arguments remain for class certification. As to topic numbers 3, 5, 7, & 8, the Court finds they are moot based on the argument of the Plaintiff that they are no longer pursuing those topics. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. Crawley is a privately-held oil and gas exploration and production company that was formed in 1972.[CC] EHPLABS LLC: Chavez Sues Over Plant Protein Powder's Deceptive Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ RICK CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EHPLABS, LLC dba Blessed Protein, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01547-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal., June 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Blessed Plant Protein Powder. The Defendant makes a protein claim on the product's front label that it contains 23 grams of protein per serving, but it did not report any Recommended Daily Value on the Nutrition Facts panel as required under 21 C.F.R. Section 101.9(c)(7). The protein claim on the principal display panel of the product is deceptive and misleading to reasonable consumers because that claim is not clarified and contextualized by the disclosure of the quality-adjusted percent daily value in the Supplement Facts panel. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the product or would have purchased it under substantially different terms. EHPLabs, LLC, doing business as Blessed Protein, is a manufacturer of plant protein powders, with its principal place of business in Valley Village, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Directs Unsealing of Certain Exhibits -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00252-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Patricia Barksdale entered an order directing the clerk to: (1) unseal Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 to the response to the motion for class certification, S-Docs. 89-1, 89-2, 89-3; (2) replace Doc. 88-10 (the placeholder for Exhibit 6) with S- Doc. 89-1; (3) replace Doc. 88-11 (the placeholder for Exhibit 7) with S- Doc. 89-2; and (4) replace Doc. 88-12 (a redacted Exhibit 8) with S-Doc. 89-3. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y05jWM at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST RELIANCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Clark Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE CLARK AND JAY CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST RELIANCE BANCSHARES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2025CP1003155 filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Charleston County, South Carolina on May 30, 2025, seeks to address the harm caused by First Reliance's inadequate security measures that resulted in a data breach and Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information being stolen. According to the complaint, despite knowing of the substantial cybersecurity risks it faced, First Reliance, leaked, disbursed, and furnished Plaintiffs' valuable PII to unknown cybercriminals, thus causing them present, immediate, imminent, and continuing increased risk of harm. First Reliance, through its status as a fiduciary entrusted with Plaintiffs' accounts, obtained and continues to maintain PII and has a legal duty and obligation to protect PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. The Plaintiffs PII was compromised and disclosed as a result of the data breach, says the suit. First Reliance is a bank with its corporate headquarters in Florence, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Alphin, Esq. Kennedy Ezekiel, Esq. STROM LAW FIRM, LLC 6923 N. Trenholm Road, Ste 200 Columbia, SC 29206 Telephone: (803) 252-4800 Facsimile: (803) 252-4801 E-mail: jalphin@stromlaw.com kezekiel@stromlaw.com - and - Whitney B. Harrison, Esq. MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC 1517 Hampton St. Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 779-0100 Facsimile: (803) 787-0750 E-mail: wharrison@mcgowanhood.com - and - A.G. Solomons III, Esq. SPEIGHTS & SOLOMONS, LLC 100 Oak Street Hampton, SC 29924 Telephone: (803) 943-4444 E-mail: gsolomons@speightsandsolomons.com GC PIZZA: Settlement in Rodriguez Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENT RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v. GC PIZZA LLC, d/b/a "Domino's Pizza," Case No. 4:20-cv-03106-SMB-RCC (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Susan M. Bazis entered an order as follows: 1. The plaintiff's consent motion for approval of a collective action settlement and final approval of a class action settlement is granted. 2. The plaintiff's application for service award, fees, and costs is granted. 3. The plaintiff's counsel is awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $166,666.67. 4. The plaintiff's counsel is also awarded $49,135.76 (for Mr. Potashnick) and $834.32 (for Mr. Weinhaus) in reimbursement of litigation expenses they incurred and disbursed in prosecuting this litigation. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court finally certifies Mark Potashnick of Weinhaus & Potashnick and Edward Weinhaus of LegalSolved, LLC as settlement class counsel. Vincent Rodriguez is awarded $5,000 for his service as class representative. The settlement administrator may be paid from the settlement fund its actual fees and costs incurred of $11,000.00, for notice and settlement administration services. The Plaintiff, Vincent Rodriguez, filed this action in September 2020. He alleged, "individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated delivery drivers," that GC Pizza1 used a flawed method to reimburse drivers for using their own vehicles, which caused the drivers net wages to fall below the federal and state minimum wages during some or all workweeks. In its Oct. 10, 2024, Memorandum and Order, the Court finally certified a collective action of "delivery drivers employed by the defendant between Dec. 14, 2018, and May 22, 2022, for settlement purposes." Domino's is an American multinational pizza restaurant chain. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UA0G4E at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Beauchamp Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Mich. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BEAUCHAMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11653-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee from approximately June 2022 through April 4, 2025. General Motors, LLC is an automobile manufacturer, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com GMET COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graham Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GMET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00591-ALM (E.D. Tex., June 3, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Graham was employed by the Defendant as a sales advocate. GMET Communications, LLC specializes in providing a wide range of mobile communication solutions, including prepaid wireless plans, smartphones, accessories, and data services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 8201 Mission Road, Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66206 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com GOLDMAN FINANCIAL: Court Allows Plaintiff to Take Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Discovery and Extend Motion for Default Judgment Deadline in the case, Leonard v. Goldman Financial, Inc., Case No. 25-CV-20641-RAR (S.D. Fla). The Court reviewed the Motion and determined that the relief requested was appropriate under the circumstances presented. This putative class action was brought by Plaintiff Steven Leonard, proceeding individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant Goldman Financial, Inc. On February 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant, and a summons was issued. The plaintiff filed proof of a summons executed on March 25, 2025, which required the Defendant to respond or answer by April 15, 2025. Plaintiff requested two forms of relief from the Court. First, Plaintiff requested leave to take discovery to identify members of the Class and determine the amount of damages they are entitled to in advance of seeking entry of class certification and default judgment. Specifically, Plaintiff sought to serve discovery on Defendant and any third parties involved in making the violative calls, to obtain call logs from them. Second, Plaintiff moved to extend the deadline to file his Motion for Default Judgment, requesting 90 days within which to conduct discovery and move for class certification and default judgment on behalf of himself and the class. Defendant Goldman Financial, Inc. failed to participate in the proceedings despite multiple opportunities to respond. The Defendant failed to timely respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by the April 15, 2025 deadline. On April 16, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause requiring the Defendant to respond or answer and to show good cause for its failure to timely respond on or before April 25, 2025. The Defendant again failed to comply with the Court's directive. On April 28, 2025, the Court entered an Order Directing Clerk to Enter Default and Requiring Motion for Default Final Judgment, and the Clerk entered Default as to Defendant Goldman Financial, Inc. the next day. The Court applied established legal standards in evaluating the Plaintiff's motion. The Court recognized that a class action "may only be certified if the court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) have been satisfied." The Court noted that "The burden of establishing these requirements is on the plaintiff who seeks to certify the suit as a class action" and that "Plaintiff's burden to establish these requirements is not eliminated due to the fact that the defendant in this case is in default." The Court acknowledged that "in circumstances such as those present here, where a plaintiff has filed a motion for a default judgment, but discovery is necessary to resolve issues such as class certification and damages, courts routinely permit the plaintiff to conduct limited discovery." The Court emphasized that "it would be unjust to prevent Plaintiff from attempting to demonstrate the elements for certification of a class without the benefit of discovery, due to Defendant's failure to participate in this case." The Court determined that despite Defendant's failure to participate in the action, discovery was warranted for the purposes of assessing the prerequisites for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court reasoned that a clerk's entry of default does not change the analysis that a district court must complete in determining class certification because "any other conclusion might give defendants an incentive to default in situations where class certification seems likely." Regarding the extension of time, the Court determined that since it was appropriate to grant Plaintiff leave to conduct class-certification discovery, there was good cause to grant the requested extension. The Court found that 90 days would provide adequate time for the Plaintiff to conduct necessary discovery and prepare the required motions. The Court ordered and adjudged that Plaintiff's Motion is granted. The Court permitted Plaintiff to conduct discovery as requested in the motion. The Court directed that Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Default Final Judgment on or before August 18, 2025, providing the Plaintiff with the requested 90-day extension to complete discovery and prepare the necessary filings. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=95ElIo GOOGLE LLC: Judge Rejects Privacy Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that people who accused Google of illegally collecting their personal information, after they chose not to synchronize their Google Chrome browsers with their Google accounts, cannot sue the Alphabet (GOOGL.O), unit as a group in a class action, a U.S. judge ruled. In a decision on Monday, June 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California agreed with Google that it was appropriate to address case-by-case whether millions of Chrome users understood and agreed to its data collection policies. "Inquiries relating to Google's implied consent defense will overwhelm the damages claims for all causes of action," Rogers wrote. She dismissed the proposed damages class action with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought again. The judge also said Chrome users cannot seek policy changes as a group. David Straite, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, declined to comment. Sandi Knight, vice president of litigation at Google, in a statement said the company appreciated the decision, and that Chrome Sync has "clear privacy controls." Class actions let plaintiffs seek potentially greater recoveries at lower cost than they could in individual lawsuits. The decision followed a ruling last August by the federal appeals court in San Francisco, which said Rogers should consider whether reasonable Chrome users consented to letting Google collect their data when they browsed online. Chrome users pointed to Chrome's privacy notice, which said they "don't need to provide any personal information to use Chrome" and Google would not collect such information unless they turned on the "sync" function. Rogers had dismissed the case in December 2022. She said she oversees two other privacy cases against Mountain View, California-based Google, but the claims in those cases differed "significantly." The appeals court ruling followed Google's 2023 agreement to destroy billions of records to settle a lawsuit claiming it tracked people who thought they were browsing privately, including in Chrome's "Incognito" mode. The case is Calhoun et al v Google LLC, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-16993. [GN] GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: July 22 Final Pretrial Conference Vacated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01552 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 30, 2021), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order vacating the parties' stipulation regarding the current Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial dates. In light of the pending motion to deny class certification and motions for summary judgment, the court vacates the Final Pretrial Conference set for July 22, 2025, and the Jury Trial set for Sept. 22. 2025, to be reset if necessary. The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act involving employment discrimination. Grimmway is grower, producer, and shipper of carrots. It is headquartered in Bakersfield, California.[CC] HARBIN CLINIC: Fails to Protect Personal and Health Info, Nash Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY NASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARBIN CLINIC, LLC, and NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00137-WMR (N.D. Ga., May 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of its patients, including Plaintiff. In July 2024, Defendant NRS discovered suspicious activity in its information technology environment, which resulted in an unauthorized party gaining access to PHI/PII between July 5, 2024, and July 11, 2024. Upon information and belief, NRS did not notify Defendant Harbin of the Data Breach until February 2025. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI/PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendants implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, it could have prevented the data breach, says the suit. Harbin Clinic, LLC operates as medical services clinic.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: André R. Belanger, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com HCA HEALTHCARE: McRee Seeks Conditional Status of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON MCREE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00128-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. Conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective; 2. Implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to: "All current and former non-exempt (including but not limited to commission-based, production-based, hourly, and salaried) employees of the Defendant who worked at hospitals or health facilities formerly owned or affiliated with Mission Hospital during the period of three years preceding the commencement of this action to the present who worked overtime hours during one or more workweeks and who were not paid overtime compensation at one and one-half times the employees' regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek by virtue of having their time rounded and/or edited, and/or having their time deducted for a missed, non- taken, or uninterrupted meal break"; 3. Requiring the Defendants to provide a list, in electronic format, of all members of the certified collective, that should include: names, titles, last known mailing addresses and telephone numbers, dates of employment, locations of employment, and work and personal e-mail addresses, and 4. Requiring the Parties to meet and confer promptly as to the content of the notice and the manner of its distribution. HCA is an American for-profit operator of health care facilities. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jLwero at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher Timmel, Esq. Sarah E. Sears, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 - and - Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Katharine Batchelor, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 HESS CORP: Must File Class Cert in Wagner Response by June 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA WAGNER, individually and on behalf of the Hess Corporation Employees' Savings Plan, and all others similarly situated, v. HESS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00004-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order granting the Plaintiffs unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a reply in support of the plaintiffs motion for class certification. -- The Defendant shall file a response to the motion for class certification by June 16, 2025. -- Any response filed on or before June 16, 2025, shall be deemed timely. Hess is an American global independent energy company involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UovY9H at no extra charge.[CC] HPG PIZZA: Seeks Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Breach of Contract Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE MIGHELL and STEPHANIE HOLLOWAY, On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. HPG PIZZA I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, HPG Pizza II, LLC, a Delaware limits liability company, ROB PRANGE, individually, JOHN NICHOLAS RHOADS, individually, NATHAN JACKSON HAMILTON, individually, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:25-cv-01667-SKC-NRN (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract or, alternatively, declining to exercise jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to the first-to-file rule. The Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract; alleged violations of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), and Code of Colorado Regulations ("CCR" or "COMPS Order"); alleged violations of the Denver Revised Municipal Code ("DRMC"); and claims of unjust enrichment and civil theft. The Plaintiffs filed this Action on April 9, 2025, alleging, among other things, HPG violated the CMWA, CWA, and COMPS Order for its alleged failure to adequately reimburse its delivery drivers for expenses and to pay them for rest breaks. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "current and former delivery drivers employed at the HPG Papa John's stores owned, operated, and controlled by the Defendants in Colorado" from April 9, 2019, to the date of the final judgment of this matter. Additionally, Mighell seeks to represent a class of "delivery drivers who worked in Denver between April 9, 2022, until the date of judgment for alleged violations of the DRMC, even though he never worked for HPG at one of its Denver stores." Mighell worked for HPG as a delivery driver for less than a month between June and July 2023. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6b2Yn9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Micah D. Dawson, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 218-3650 Facsimile: (303) 218-3651 E-mail: mdawson@fisherphillips.com HSBC BANK: Seeks to Amend Class Certification Order in Cheng Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheng v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-01551-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order setting a schedule for HSBC's anticipated Rule 23(c)(1)(C) motion to alter or amend the Court's order certifying a breach-of-contract class so these important issues can be fully briefed and adjudicated. These issues have been properly raised, and the Court's resolution of them now will streamline the case and maximize judicial economy. Cheng has defined the breach-of-contract class in relevant part as "all persons in the United States who opened a Direct Savings Account with HSBC between March 25, 2014, through the date of certification and who made noncash deposits into the account using HSBC's online portal." The class definition also should be narrowed to exclude any class-plaintiff who opened a Direct Savings Account with HSBC on or after Feb. 21, 2021, the Defendant contends. The Plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim is premised on the "you deposit" language in HSBC's Terms and Charges Disclosure. Plaintiff acknowledged more than three years ago that the Terms and Charges Disclosure was "revised to remove" the challenged language no later than Feb. 21, 2021. HSBC offers a range of financial services, including personal banking, wealth management, and lending. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jNIVat at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Mark S. Melodia, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 787 Seventh Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 513-3583 Facsimile: (212) 513-3583 E-mail: Mark.Melodia@hklaw.com INFINIWELL INC: Walsh Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INFINIWELL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-50240 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.infiniwell.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on its website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Infiniwell, Inc. operates the website which provides hair care solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com IONIC DIGITAL: Board Reduction Invalid, Del. Chancery Court Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered judgment in the case captioned as VETON VEJSELI, BRETT PERRY, and CHRISTOPHER VILLINGER, Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT DUFFY, THOMAS DIFIORE, SCOTT FLANDERS, ELIZABETH LAPUMA, and IONIC DIGITAL, INC., Defendants, C.A. No. 2025-0232-BWD (Del. Ch.), granting relief for Plaintiffs on certain claims and for Defendants on others in a post-trial memorandum opinion issued on May 21, 2025. Ionic Digital, Inc. emerged on January 5, 2024, from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Celsius Network, LLC, acquiring Celsius' digital currency mining assets. Many Celsius creditors, including Plaintiffs, became Ionic stockholders. Ionic has a classified Board with directors in each of three classes serving three-year terms. When Ionic was formed, the Board comprised eight directors, including three in Class I (with terms expiring at Ionic's first annual meeting), three in Class II (with terms expiring at Ionic's second annual meeting), and two in Class III (with terms expiring at Ionic's third annual meeting). By November 2024, the Board was reduced to four directors: Elizabeth LaPuma (Class I), Scott Flanders (Class II), Scott Duffy (Class III), and Thomas DiFiore (Class III). Plaintiffs, frustrated by Ionic's failure to publicly list its shares, partnered with non-stockholders Figure Markets Inc. and GXD Labs, LLC to pursue governance changes. In the summer of 2024, Ionic stockholders, including Vejseli, publicly vented their frustration with the Company's failure to publicly list its shares to provide stockholders liquidity. Vejseli initially sought to call a special meeting to replace directors, later shifting to a proxy contest at Ionic's first annual meeting scheduled for March 17, 2025. On February 6, 2025, the Board adopted a unanimous written consent scheduling the annual meeting and reducing the Board from six to five directors, eliminating one Class I seat. The February 6 Consent also purported to amend the Bylaws to reduce the size of the Board from six directors to five, with one director serving as a Class I director, two directors serving as Class II directors and two directors serving as Class III directors. This resolution was not disclosed in the February 6 press release announcing the meeting date, which triggered a 10-day nomination window under Ionic's advance notice bylaw (Section 2.4). Plaintiffs submitted a nomination notice on February 14, 2025, proposing Michael Abbate and Oliver Wiener for the two Class I seats they believed were available. The Nomination Notice summarized, but did not attach, the September 11 MNDA, December 10 MNDA, and Solicitation Agreement. The Nomination Notice did not disclose prior agreements between members of the group, including the First Group Agreement, September 24 Olshan Agreement, September 25 MNDA, Second Group Agreement, October 7 Side Letter, Third Group Agreement, or December 6 Olshan Agreement. On February 20, Ionic disclosed the Board Reduction Resolution, and on February 28, the Board rejected the nomination notice for failing to disclose and attach required agreements. Plaintiffs' Claims Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2025, asserting four counts. Count I alleges a claim challenging the Board Reduction Resolution as a breach of fiduciary duty; Count II alleges a claim challenging the Board Reduction Resolution under the Bylaws; Count III alleges a claim challenging the Board's rejection of the Nomination Notice as a breach of fiduciary duty; and Count IV alleges disclosure claims. Count I: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Board Reduction Resolution) Plaintiffs argued that the Board breached its fiduciary duties by adopting the Board Reduction Resolution to entrench directors and thwart a proxy contest. Plaintiffs contend that Ionic's directors breached their fiduciary duties by adopting the board reduction resolution... Applying enhanced scrutiny under Unocal, with sensitivity to the stockholder franchise under Blasius, this post-trial memorandum opinion concludes that Ionic's directors breached their fiduciary duties by reducing the size of the Board, not for a valid corporate purpose, but as an inequitable defensive measure. Count III: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Nomination Notice Rejection) Plaintiffs claimed the Board improperly rejected their nomination notice, asserting it complied with the advance notice bylaw or, alternatively, that the rejection was inequitable. Plaintiffs contended that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by improperly rejecting a Nomination Notice that complied with the Advance Notice Bylaw; and that even if the Nomination Notice did not comply, the Director Defendants' application of the Advance Notice Bylaw was inequitable. Count IV: Disclosure Violations Plaintiffs alleged that Ionic issued false and misleading disclosures about the Board Reduction Resolution, the nomination notice rejection, and Plaintiffs' relationship with Figure Markets and GXD. Count IV asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty premised on disclosure violations. Plaintiffs seek an order requiring corrective disclosures to remedy the purported violations. Defendants countered that the Board Reduction Resolution was a valid exercise of business judgment to increase efficiency and avoid deadlock. The principal justification offered in this litigation is that the Board Reduction Resolution "increase[d] efficiencies, including to have an odd number of directors in order to avoid deadlock, and to decrease costs." Defendants also argued that the resolution was unrelated to the proxy contest, citing Openwave Systems Inc. for business judgment review. Regarding the nomination notice, Defendants asserted it failed to comply with the advance notice bylaw by omitting key agreements. The Board rejected the Nomination Notice because it failed to (1) attach copies of the Solicitation Agreement, September 11 MNDA, and December 10 MNDA; or (2) disclose the existence of the First Group Agreement, Second Group Agreement, and Third Group Agreement, among other agreements. Defendants maintained that rejection was necessary to protect stockholders' informed voting rights. On disclosure claims, Defendants argued their statements were accurate or opinion-based, not requiring correction. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that this disclosure, which reflects the Board's opinion, is false, let alone that it was made carelessly or disloyally. Court Findings (A) Count I: Board Reduction Resolution The Court applied enhanced scrutiny under Unocal and Blasius, finding the Board Reduction Resolution was not adopted on a "clear day." The Court stated, "In stark contrast to Openwave, the trial evidence here overwhelmingly supports a finding that the Board Reduction Resolution was not adopted on a 'clear day'... Because the Board Reduction Resolution was not adopted on a 'clear day,' but in the face of a mounting proxy contest, enhanced scrutiny applies." The Court found no valid corporate purpose for the resolution, noting, "The Board failed to prove that the Board Reduction Resolution was adopted for a valid, non-pretextual corporate purpose. The principal justification offered in this litigation is that the Board Reduction Resolution 'increase[d] efficiencies, including to have an odd number of directors in order to avoid deadlock, and to decrease costs'... Importantly, however, there is no contemporaneous record suggesting that the Board actually considered those purposes before approving the Board Reduction Resolution." The Court further observed, "The Board's shifting explanations in this litigation further evoke skepticism." The resolution was deemed preclusive, as it "made success in a proxy contest realistically unattainable" by reducing the number of electable seats. The Court concluded, "The Board failed to prove that the Board Reduction Resolution was adopted for a valid, non-pretextual corporate purpose or that the Board Reduction Resolution is reasonable and not preclusive. Plaintiffs have therefore succeeded in proving that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by adopting the Board Reduction Resolution." (B) Count III: Nomination Notice Rejection The Court found the nomination notice non-compliant with the advance notice bylaw, stating, "The Board's second reason for rejecting the Nomination Notice -- the failure to disclose the existence of material agreements between Plaintiffs, Figure Markets, and GXD—carries the day." Specifically, the Court highlighted, "Even assuming Plaintiffs were only required to disclose extant agreements, the Nomination Notice still failed to disclose a material provision in a 'terminated' agreement that expressly survived termination." The Court referenced Paragraph 7 of the Third Group Agreement, which committed to governance changes, noting, "The existence of a commitment to support the types of proposals described in Paragraph 7 'would have been important to stockholders in deciding which director candidates to support.'" The Court also found the rejection equitable, stating, "The Board proved at trial that it rejected the Nomination Notice to advance important corporate interests.... The Board here appropriately 'conclude[d] that the objective of preserving an informed stockholder vote was threatened.'" The Court rejected Plaintiffs' claims of pretext, noting, "The Director Defendants credibly testified that they believed understanding the specifics of all arrangements between Plaintiffs, Figure Markets, and GXD would be highly material to stockholders deciding who to support at the Annual Meeting." (C) Count IV: Disclosure Violations The Court partially granted Plaintiffs' disclosure claims, stating, "Plaintiffs first argue that Ionic disseminated false and misleading disclosures stating that only one Class I director seat is up for election at the Annual Meeting. To ensure that stockholders are fully informed, Ionic must disclose the Court's ruling in this action, including the new date of the Annual Meeting and the Court's order that the nomination window be reopened for ten days to permit any Ionic stockholder to nominate directors for the two Class I seats up for election." However, the Court denied claims regarding statements about the nomination notice and Figure Markets/GXD, finding, "Plaintiffs have not proven that such disclosure is false, or was made carelessly or disloyally." The Court found irreparable harm, stating, "Without some form of injunctive relief, Ionic stockholders will be prevented from exercising their voting rights by electing two directors at the Annual Meeting. 'This loss of voting power constitutes irreparable injury.'" The balance of equities favored relief, as "In the absence of an injunction, stockholders risk losing 'sacrosanct' voting rights. Defendants, on the other hand, face no hardship from an injunction." The Court entered judgment for Plaintiffs on Count I and aspects of Count IV, and for Defendants on Count III. The Court held, "Plaintiffs have established their entitlement to an order invalidating the Board Reduction Resolution and restoring the Board to six directors, including two Class I directors.... To appropriately restore the stockholders' ability to elect two Class I directors at the Annual Meeting, an injunction will issue directing the Board to reopen the ten-day nomination window under the Advance Notice Bylaw to allow the Board, Plaintiffs, and any other Ionic stockholder to submit director nominations." The Court also ordered corrective disclosures regarding the annual meeting and nomination window. The Court declined to bar Plaintiffs from submitting a new nomination notice, stating, "Under the unusual facts of this case, I disagree [with Defendants' assertion that Plaintiffs should be barred].... it is not Plaintiffs' but the Board's wrongful conduct that necessitates reopening the nomination window." The Court directed the parties to confer on a proposed order to implement these rulings' A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K0m341 JBS LIVE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Ryan McCarthy, writing for Meat + Poultry, reports that JBS Live Pork faces a class action lawsuit from a former employee who alleged the company did not properly compensate employees at its Beardstown, III., pork facility. The complaint was filed by Darrin Force in the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois, regarding possible violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The case was filed with the court in February. Force worked at the plant from 2018 until 2022 and expects to represent more than 500 current and former employees who regularly worked at least 37.5 hours per week in the past three years. Force and other class members stated they would spend a minimum of 30 minutes a day performing pre-shift and post-shift work activities, which they were not compensated for. The lawsuit is seeking unpaid wages, damages, penalties and interest, along with attorney's fees and expert fees. [GN] KINYA HOLDING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Claude Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KINYA HOLDING, INC, Case No. 2:25-cv-07960 (D.N.J., June 6, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.kinya.us, 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 access Defendant's Website from her home but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to make an online Ramen order. The Plaintiff's desire for this service was due to the fact that she was looking for a method to place an order for authentic Japanese cuisine through an online platform. As she enjoys Japanese cuisine and often orders its flavorful dishes for dinner, she intended to find a service recognized for its reliability and ease of use. 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 KISWIRE INC: Bedenbaugh Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Bedenbaugh, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Kiswire, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-04771-DCC (D.S.C., May 30, 2025) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and as a collective action, for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was a warehouse employee for Defendant Kiswire and consistently worked over 40 hours a week but was not paid a premium for his time over 40 hours a week. The Defendant willfully and intentionally mischaracterized Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons as supervisors exempt from overtime pay for any hours worked above 40 hours to avoid paying time a half as required by the FLSA, says the suit. Kiswire, Inc. is a manufacturer of steel cord which is used in tire production, among other things.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack E. Cohoon, Esq. Sarah J.M. Cox, Esq. BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA Post Office Box 1929 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 904-7914 Facsimile: (803) 904-7910 E-mail: JCohoon@BurnetteShutt.Law SCox@BurnetteShutt.Law KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Hamilton Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNY HAMILTON, ANTHONY KILLION, KRISTOPHER KACZANOWSKI, LEROY COKER, DARREL BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION INC. dba Arizona Knight Transportation Inc.; KNIGHT PORT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order granting in part motion for class certification and granting request for judicial notice. 1. The Request for Judicial Notice of (1) a letter from Boise to the DLSE requesting DLSE to advise whether Boise's proposed program of electronic delivery of wage statements is approved; and (2) a letter from the DLSE to Boise responding to Boise's inquiry regarding electronic itemized wage statements and explaining California Labor Code section 226(a), which requires employers to include accurate information on their employees' wage statements is granted. 2. The motion for class certification is granted in part: a. The Court certifies the following classes: i. The Proposed Class: "All former and current Drivers employed by the Defendants within the State of California, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (i.e., Nov. 2, 2017) until the present date"; ii. Subclass A: "All former and current Drivers employed by the Defendants within the State of California who were not paid for all hours worked, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit until the present date"; and iii. Subclass C: "All former and current Drivers employed by the Defendants within the State of California who were not furnished with accurate wage statements, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit until the present date." b. The Court denies certification of Subclass B. The Court finds it appropriate to take judicial notice of both documents. Their existence and authenticity can be "readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." The Court will take judicial notice of the fact that these documents exist and their contents, but not of any disputed issues of fact contained within the documents. The Court finds not all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) have been met as to the proposed subclass B-"all former and current Drivers employed by the Defendants within the State of California who were reimbursed no more than $5.00 per month for cell phone reimbursement, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit until the present date." The Court therefore denies certification as to subclass B. The Plaintiffs allege various wage and hour violations against Knight Transportation and Knight Port. Knight provides trucking transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3KvuyV at no extra charge.[CC] KOD ATLANTA: Bishop Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREMIYAH BISHOP, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. KOD ATLANTA, LLC d/b/a KING OF DIAMONDS ATLANTA, and AKINYELE ADAMS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00694-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: (a) conditionally certifying the following FLSA class: "All adult entertainers/dancers who worked at King of Diamonds Atlanta in the past three years"; (b) requiring the Defendants to produce within 14 days a list of all adult entertainers/dancers who worked in the past three (3) years in an electronic or computer-readable format with their full name, dates of employment, last known address, cell phone number, email address and last four (4) digits of their social security number; and (c) authorizing notice in the form and manner requested. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants willfully violated the minimum wage and overtime wage provisions of the Fair labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), misclassifying them as independent contractors rather than employees. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants kept a portion of tips paid to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants' customers in the form of fees, fines, mandatory charges and other payments to the Defendants' employees, such as its managers, house moms, disc jockeys ("DJs"), hookah personnel, bartenders, money counters, sweepers, and other employees of Defendants, in violation of the Tip Income Protection Act ("TIPA"). KOD owns and operates King of Diamonds Atlanta, an adult entertainment club in Forest Park, Georgia. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zb4spU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Jordan P. Rose, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com LANGER JUICE: Faces Arres Suit Over Juice Products' False Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- HATTIE K. ARRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANGER JUICE COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-01451 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2025) is a class action individually and on behalf of those similarly situated to represent a Nationwide Class and a California Subclass of consumers who purchased the Langer 100% Juice products. Accordingly, the Defendant labels and advertises its Langer 100% Juice products with statements such as "100% Juice" or "100% Pure Juice." These claims are false and misleading because the products contain various added ingredients, including ascorbic acid, pectin, xanthan gum, citric acid, acacia gum, natural flavors, malic acid, and organic flavor. Such additives are inconsistent with consumers' reasonable expectations of a product labeled as "100% Juice" or "100% Pure Juice." As a result, consumers, including Plaintiff, are misled into believing they are purchasing beverages made solely from juice, when in fact they are not. By using these deceptive labels and representations, the Defendant has implemented a misleading marketing strategy that has impacted consumers both in California and across the United States, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks monetary recovery of the premium consumers paid for Defendant's misleading tactics and Defendant's ill-gotten gains, as consistent with permissible law including, for example, restitution, disgorgement, and any applicable penalties. The Plaintiff seeks to permanently enjoin the Defendant's unlawful advertising practices for the benefit of consumers, including Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff further seeks an order compelling Langer Juice to cease marketing its products using the complained misleading tactics and conduct a corrective advertising campaign. LANGER JUICE COMPANY, INC. is a manufacturer of juices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Maggie K. Realin, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com mrealin@ckslaw.com LESSEREVIL LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 10, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TWYLA COGSWELL, v. LESSEREVIL LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00311-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Feb. 27, 2026. The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than Aug. 21, 2026. With regard to expert testimony intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before Sept. 18, 2026. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than Oct. 16, 2026. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed on or before Apr. 10, 2026, and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than May 28, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before Dec. 18, 2026, and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than Feb. 18, 2027, at 1:30 p.m. The final pretrial conference is set for June 3, 2027, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 10 before District Court Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. Hearings may be conducted by Zoom upon the joint request of all parties. A jury trial is set for July 19, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before District Court Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. LesserEvil is a food manufacturing company that produces a variety of packaged snack products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5puMBF at no extra charge.[CC] LEXISNEXIS RISK: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O., v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02504-MHC-RDC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Regina Cannon entered an order granting motion to revise the scheduling order and extend the discovery deadline as follows: 1. The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification is Oct. 17, 2025. The Defendant's opposition response must be filed by Nov. 14, 2025, and the Plaintiff's reply must be filed by Dec. 5, 2025. 2. The fact-discovery deadline is Jan. 19, 2026. The Plaintiff must disclose expert witnesses and reports within 30 days after the close of fact discovery. The Defendant, in turn, must disclose its expert witnesses and reports within 30 days after the Plaintiff's expert disclosure. The expert-discovery deadline is April 17, 2026. 3. Any motions for summary judgment must be filed by May 15, 2026, and if no motions for summary judgment are filed the proposed consolidated pretrial order will be due on that date. LexisNexis is a global data and analytics company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2J0uCj at no extra charge.[CC] LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Hicks Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACK HICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03036-SDG (N.D. Ga., May 30, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on May 27, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose private information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected private information using reasonable and adequate security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents; and (iv) timely notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. is a data analytics company that specializes in providing risk management services to businesses in various industries including insurance, financial services, healthcare, and government.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Herman, Esq. Candace N. Smith, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Road Northeast, Ste. 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 504-6500 Facsimile: (404) 504-6501 E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com csmith@hermanjones.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: ek@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com LORETTO HEALTH: Filing for Class Certification Extended to Oct. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aderohunmu v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Center, Case No. 5:24-cv-00731 (N.D.N.Y., Filed May 31, 2024), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order that: (1) pre-class certification documents and information shall be produced to Plaintiffs by Aug. 28, 2025; (2) Plaintiffs deadline to move for class certification is extended to Oct. 9, 2025; (3) Plaintiffs expert disclosure deadline is extended to Nov. 10, 2025; (4) Defendants expert disclosure deadline is extended to Dec. 22, 2025; (5) rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is extended to Jan. 5, 2026; (6) the deadline for all discovery (merit, named Plaintiffs, and class) to be completed, including all depositions, is extended to Feb. 5, 2026; and (7) the filing of dispositive motions deadline is extended to May 11, 2026. These schedules and deadlines will not be extended further without extraordinary cause. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving collection of unpaid wages. The Defendant provides healthcare services.[CC] LUCERO AG SERVICES: Court Awards Ortiz, et al., $950 in Atty's Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZUCENA ORTIZ, et al., v. LUCERO AG SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica Grosjean entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel and request for attorney fees is granted in part, as specified below. a. The Defendant Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio is ordered to provide further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1-23, and 26 within 45 days of the entry of this order. b. The Plaintiffs are awarded $950 in attorney fees from only the Defendant Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio. 2. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio at both of the following addresses: (1) 529 South D Street, Madera, CA 93638; and (2) 3573 Rocky Bottom Street, Madera, CA 93637. Accordingly, the Court finds the appropriate lodestar award to be $950 ($200 per hour x 4.75 hours), and will grant the request for attorney fees in part. In this putative class action case, the Plaintiffs seeks to compel the Lucero Defendants (Lucero Ag Services, Inc. and Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio) to produce certain discovery. The motion also contains a request for $5,111 in attorney fees. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion to compel, in part. Specifically, it will order Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio to respond to discovery and order him to pay $950 in attorney fees. The Plaintiffs Azucena Ortiz, Gustavo Meza, and Dominga Espinoza filed this putative class action on Sept. 5, 2023, mostly alleging violations of California state labor laws. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NMvrVa at no extra charge.[CC] MAGHSOOD ABBASZADEH: Court Dismisses Walker SAC ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE WALKER; SHERRY WALKER; and APPLE STREET ONE TWENTY, LLC, v. MAGHSOOD ABBASZADEH; AYYOOB ABBASZADEH; SABA55 LLC; ZIBALAND, LLC; HIGHLANDPLEX, LLC; NEDA, LLC; MEGA REAL, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00912-DBB (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge David Barlow entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint and dismisses the Plaintiffs' section 1589 claim with prejudice. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a plausible claim under 18 U.S.C. section 1589(a)(1), (2), (3) and (4). The Plaintiffs' SAC failed to correct any of the deficiencies the court identified in dismissing the previous Amended Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiffs did not show that Mrs. Walker had no available choice but to work for Defendants and instead argued that this is not required. The Plaintiffs also came no closer to plausibly alleging that Defendants caused Mrs. Walker to feel compelled to work for them or intended that result. They further failed to identify any new allegation in the SAC addressing the issues that required the dismissal of the Amended Complaint. As such, the court concludes that allowing further amendments would be futile. The Plaintiffs Steve Walker, Sherry Walker, and Apple Street One Twenty, LLC allege that the Defendants violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and committed a number of torts. The Defendants move to dismiss each of Plaintiffs' claims. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e83IeO at no extra charge.[CC] MARINE PRODUCTS: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Taylor Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE TAYLOR and MATTHEW STEVENS v. MARINE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, RPC, INC., SUSAN R. BELL, PATRICK J. GUNNING, RICHARD A. HUBBLE, AMY R. KREISLER, JERRY W. NIX, BEN M. PALMER, GARY W. ROLLINS, PAMELA R. ROLLINS, TIMOTHY C. ROLLINS, and JOHN F. WILSON, Case No. 2025-0654 (Del. Ch., June 10, 2025) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Marine Products and for breaches of fiduciary duty against the Director Defendants as a class action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23 on behalf of all similarly situated holders of shares of Marine Products (the Marine Products Class). Plaintiff Stevens brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against RPC and for breaches of fiduciary duty against the Director Defendants as a class action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23 on behalf of all similarly situated holders of shares of RPC common stock (the RPC Class). Excluded from the Classes are Defendants, and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with any Defendant. Accordingly, Marine Products Class and the RPC Class are each so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. As of April 18, 2025, there were 15 34,955,443 shares of Marine Products common stock outstanding and 220,564,506 shares of RPC common stock outstanding. These shares are likely held by hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals and entities scattered throughout the United States and elsewhere. Marine Products and RPC are sister companies. In 2001, RPC spun off Marine Products as a separate, publicly traded company. At all relevant times, both Companies have been controlled by their founder, Gary Rollins, who holds a majority of both Companies' voting power. Both Companies have the same directors and both Companies have illegal fee-shifting bylaws that the Director Defendants refuse to remove, the suit asserts. In 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court held in ATP Tour that a non-stock corporation's bylaw provision that shifted fees to an unsuccessful member that brought claims against the corporation was facially valid. Later that year, Marine Products and RPC adopted fee-shifting bylaw provisions. In 2015, the General Assembly responded to ATP Tour by adopting Senate Bill 75, which amended Sections 102 and 109(b) of the Delaware General Corporation Law to prohibit fee-shifting provisions in Delaware corporations' charters or bylaws. After Senate Bill 75 was signed, the Companies each revised their bylaws to eliminate the fee-shifting provisions they had adopted after ATP, the suit contends. Mr. Taylor is a stockholder of Marine Products and has held shares of Marine Products continuously since October 21, 2024. Mr. Stevens is a stockholder of RPC and has held shares since 2021. Marine Products Corp is a manufacturer of fiberglass motorized boats. The Individual Defendants are directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Irene R. Lax, Esq. Daniel Baker, Robert Erikson, Esq. Jason M. Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com irene@blockleviton.com daniel@blockleviton.com robby@blockleviton.com - and - J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq. ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (475) 477-5031 - and - Joel Fleming, Esq. Lauren Godles Milgroom, Esq. Holger Spamann, Esq. EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP 1 Washington Mall, No. 1307 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 468-8602 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-680 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ NEWS CENTER Maine reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has reversed a lower Maryland court's recertification of plaintiff classes in a pair of consolidated lawsuits filed against Marriott and an information technology service provider for a 2018 data breach, handing down a major win for the international hotel franchise. In a published opinion authored by Judge Pamela Harris, a 4th Circuit panel held Bethesda-based Marriott International did not waive its right to enforce a class-action waiver, therefore making a class-action provision in its contracts with consumers valid and enforceable. Last week's ruling, which comes after more than five years of litigation and the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt initially certifying damages classes, signifies the likely end of the road for the class action lawsuits that accused Marriott and Accenture LLP, a third-party IT service provider, of failing to identify a data breach that began in 2014 and affected upwards of 130 million guest records. Counsel for the consumer plaintiffs did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision or whether their clients will file for en banc review. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in January 2019 after Marriott announced that hackers had accessed the guest reservation database of the Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide hotel chain that the company purchased in 2016. Through the database, hackers gained access to customers' personal information, including names, birthdates, phone numbers, and in some cases, payment card information, according to the court's opinion. But because customers had signed a class-action provision that requires disputes in connection with Starwood Hotels "be handled individually without any class action," the 4th Circuit found the certification of all classes against Marriott is precluded. "We can find no other court holding that a defendant's participation in an [multidistrict litigation] deprives it of the right to rely on a contractual class-waiver defense, and we will not be the first," Harris wrote for the 4th Circuit. The ruling marks the 4th Circuit's second look at Marriott's right to enforce its class-action waiver, with the federal appellate court previously vacating the district court's class certification order. A spokesperson for Marriott International said the company appreciates the 4th Circuit's "careful review" and is "gratified" by the court's decision. Counsel and spokespersons for Accenture did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In October last year, Marriott agreed to pay $52 million and make changes to bolster its data security to resolve other state and federal claims related to its data breaches, including three data breaches that occurred between 2014 and 2020. As part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, Marriott agreed to "implement a robust information security program" and provide all of its U.S. customers with a way to request that any personal information associated with their email address or loyalty rewards account number be deleted. [GN] MDL 3108: Defendants' Notice Misleading, Court Says --------------------------------------------------- United States District Judge Donovan W. Frank of the District of Minnesota issued a detailed ruling in the multi-district litigation captioned as In re: Change Healthcare, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 24-3108 (D. Minn.). The case encompasses consolidated actions, including Total Care Dental and Orthodontics v. UnitedHealth Group, Civil No. 25-179, and Odom Sports Medicine P.A. v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Civil No. 25-949. Change Healthcare operates an Electronic Data Interchange clearinghouse, facilitating communication between healthcare providers and payers for healthcare service claims. On February 21, 2024, Change identified a cyberattack breaching its Platform, termed the "Cyberattack." To mitigate the breach, Change took the Platform offline, resulting in the "Shutdown." During the Shutdown, providers using the Platform could not verify insurance, determine copays, submit claims, or receive payments, leading to significant financial disruptions, including challenges in meeting payroll and rent or mortgage obligations. To address the financial impact, Change introduced the Temporary Funding Assistance Program ("TFAP") to provide temporary loans to affected providers. As of April 1, 2025, Defendants had disbursed approximately $9.03 billion to over 10,000 providers. The TFAP Agreement stipulates that recipients must repay the full Funding Amount within 45 business days of receiving a repayment notice. Failure to repay allows Change to demand immediate repayment, offset the amount from claims processed through Change or its affiliates, or pursue other remedies. Dillman Clinic, an internal medicine and pediatric practice in Lakeville, Minnesota, established in September 2021 and operational since June 2022, relied on the Change Platform for claims processing. The Shutdown prevented Dillman Clinic from submitting claims or receiving payments, limiting its ability to accept new patients and reducing weekly patient visits. Between April 9, 2024, and September 27, 2024, Dillman Clinic received $157,600.00 through TFAP. However, approximately $4,704 in claims were denied as untimely due to the Shutdown. On November 4, 2024, Defendants demanded repayment of the full $157,600 by January 10, 2025. Dillman Clinic, facing ongoing financial strain, communicated its inability to repay, citing potential bankruptcy risk. On January 15, 2025, Defendants demanded immediate repayment within five business days, threatening claim offsetting. With cash reserves of approximately $40,000, Dillman Clinic asserts that repayment or offsetting would jeopardize its financial stability, risking closure or bankruptcy because United Healthcare insurers make up about a quarter of Dillman Clinic's total payments. Odom Sports Medicine P.A., a rehabilitation provider in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, operational since 2005, serves geriatric patients and used the Change Platform for claims processing. The Shutdown disrupted Odom's ability to submit claims and receive payments, diverting staff time from patient care and hindering promotional efforts following a January 2024 relocation. Odom estimates a $485,000 revenue loss and a $700,000 net deficit. Odom received $569,680.00 through TFAP in 2024. Defendants demanded repayment by January 2, 2025, and on January 7, 2025, requested immediate repayment within five business days, threatening claim offsetting. Odom contends that repayment would prevent staff payments, necessitating closure, and that even a repayment plan would require cutting twenty-two providers, risking bankruptcy. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that the TFAP Agreement's unambiguous terms permit immediate loan collection. While the motion is pending, Defendants paused collection efforts for named Plaintiffs but continued for putative class members, with some agreeing to offset claims against TFAP loan amounts in exchange for releases. The Court denied the preliminary injunction motion as moot, finding that Defendants voluntarily ceased collection efforts for named Plaintiffs and demonstrated, under the "formidable burden" standard, that such efforts are unlikely to resume until the TFAP loan collection merits are resolved. The Court ordered Defendants to send letters to affected providers confirming the pause, rescinding prior demands, and clarifying that collection will not resume until the Court permits. The Court denied the declaratory judgment motion as procedurally deficient, as it must be brought as an action, not a motion. The Providers’ consolidated class action complaint did not include a specific request for declaratory judgment regarding TFAP loan repayment, limiting such requests to security measures. With the TFAP Agreement dispute scheduled for hearing next month, the Court found no immediate need to address this issue. The Court granted the motion for court-supervision of Defendants' communications with putative class members, with modifications. The Court found that Defendants' communications, which presented immediate loan collection as an undisputed right while omitting the ongoing litigation, constituted misleading "half-truths." The Court ordered Defendants to include specific language in future communications about claim releases or loan forgiveness, advising providers of the federal litigation disputing TFAP loan collection timing and the implications of signing releases. Defendants must also send corrective notices to providers who signed releases and disclose to the Court and Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel lists of putative class members who have signed releases, both past and future. The Court emphasized that this order is narrowly tailored to balance Defendants' rights with protecting putative class members from misleading communications. The Court found serious misconduct in Defendants' communications with putative class members, deeming them misleading but not coercive. The ordered remedies are narrowly tailored to minimize infringement on Defendants' rights while safeguarding putative class members. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction motion was denied as moot, the declaratory judgment motion was denied, and the court supervision motion was granted with the following modifications. The Court held that: a. Defendants are ordered to include the future notice stated above in communications with all putative class members with whom Defendants communicate about a release of claims in exchange for TFAP loan forgiveness or a delay on TFAP loan collection. b. Defendants are ordered to send the corrective notice stated above to all putative class members from whom Defendants have obtained a release of claims in exchange for TFAP loan forgiveness or a delay on TFAP loan collection. c. Defendants are ordered to disclose to the Court and to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel a list of all putative class members from whom Defendants have obtained a release of claims to date. d. Defendants are ordered to notify the Court and Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel of all future releases of claims obtained from a putative class member. MEATBALL MANAGEMENT: Liz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ PEDRO LIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEATBALL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04611 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://themeatballshop.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Meatball Management, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com META PLATFORMS: Secretly Spy Users' Browsing Activity, Martin Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-04830 (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2025) alleges that Meta had been using its Instagram and Facebook mobile apps to secretly spy upon users' mobile web browsing activities. According to the complaint, Meta deanonymized the web browsing information gleaned from this surreptitious monitoring and linked it to users' identities to craft detailed user profiles, which, in turn, Meta can use for its own profits. According to the researchers, Meta's furtive and unauthorized tracking "bypasses typical privacy protections such as clearing cookies, Incognito Mode and Android's permission controls. Worse, it opens the door for potentially malicious apps eavesdropping on users' web activity." Meta's spying techniques shocked its peers in the tech space with its invasiveness and disregard for consumer expectation and industry-wide privacy norms. A representative of Google, which makes Android devices, told tech news outlet Ars Technica that the practice "blatantly violates our security and privacy principles." The Plaintiff has an Instagram account and a Facebook account. Between September 2024 and June 3, 2025, the Plaintiff has had the Facebook app and Instagram app installed on Plaintiff's Android mobile phone. He was logged in to those accounts on his phone. Between September 2024 and June 3, 2025, while the Facebook and Instagram apps were installed, logged in, and running on his Android-based mobile phone, he visited websites where the Meta Pixel was installed. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and without Plaintiff's consent, when Plaintiff visited those websites, everything Plaintiff did on those websites was collected in Meta by the Meta Pixel. And unbeknownst to Plaintiff and without Plaintiff's consent, Meta used the tracking tools described above to tie Plaintiff's website behavior to his Facebook and Instagram profiles, thus de-anonymizing and identifying Plaintiff and Plaintiff's browsing information in real time, says the suit. Meta compiled this information to create a comprehensive profile of Plaintiff in its databases for uses in advertising. The Plaintiff's data became more valuable to Meta based on its identifiability which was only available to Meta through its wrongful and surreptitious acts, the suit added. Meta Platforms, Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Menlo Park, California. Meta owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Suite 1010 Washington, District of Columbia 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com MICRODENTAL LAB: Class Cert Hearing in Provost Due May 21, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PROVOST, v. MICRODENTAL LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-09306-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered case-management and pretrial order (jury) as follows: Case Event Date Hearing on Class-Certification Motion and/or May 21, 2026 at further case-management conference: 9:30 a.m./11:00 a.m. Non-expert discovery completion date: Sept. 28, 2026 Expert disclosures required by Federal Oct. 13, 2026 Rules of Civil Procedure: Rebuttal expert disclosures: Oct. 28, 2026 Expert discovery completion date: Nov. 13, 2026 Last hearing date for dispositive motions Nov. 19, 2026 and/or further case-management conference: Meet and confer re pretrial filings: Dec. 14, 2026 Pretrial filings due: Jan. 21, 2027 Final pretrial conference: Feb. 11, 2027 Trial: Feb. 22, 2027 MicroDental manufactures of dentures, artificial teeth, and orthodontic appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mZXghF at no extra charge.[CC] MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Seeks Initial OK of Proposed Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL LENOROWITZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MOSQUITO SQUAD FRANCHISING, LLC; MOSQUITO SQUAD OF FAIRFIELD AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-01922-OAW (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Preliminarily approving the Parties' proposed amended settlement agreement as set forth in the Parties' proposed preliminary approval order, attached as Exhibit 6 to the amended settlement agreement. 2. Preliminarily certifying the Settlement class defined in the amended settlement agreement. 3. Approving as to form and content the Notice of the Class action settlement and the Claim form, attached, respectively, as Exhibits 2-5 to the Amended Settlement Agreement. 4. Approving the proposed procedures for dissemination of the Notice in the manner set forth in the proposed Preliminary Approval Order, as being the best notice practicable under the circumstances and in accord with the requirements of due process and Fed R. Civ. P. 23. 5. Appointing Kroll Group to serve as the Settlement Administrator. 6. Preliminarily appointing, forsettlement purposes only, Ari H. Marcus and Yitzchak Zelman of Marcus & Zelman, LLC to serve as class counsel. 7. Setting the date of the Final Approval Hearing; and 8. Establishing deadlines for filing the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Awards, the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, and for Settlement Class Members to request exclusion from or object to the Settlement. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CyD22J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com yzelman@MarcusZelman.com MY FAIR LADY: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. My Fair Lady, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-02415 (D. Minn., June 10, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website, www.shopmyfairlady.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 for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, sweaters, and jackets.[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 OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Liberty Sues Over Unfair Cash Sweep Program ----------------------------------------------------------------- LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., and OPPENHEIMER ASSET MANAGEMENT INC. Case No. 1:25-cv-04822 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) seeks to recover damages arising out of Defendants' unlawful conduct related to their Advantage Bank Deposit Program (ABD Program). Under the ABD Program, the Defendants automatically invested customer cash into interest-bearing accounts at program banks selected by Defendants. The cash sweep accounts were highly lucrative for Defendants and their program banks but paid unreasonable, below-market interest rates to Oppenheimer customers. Defendants and their program banks capitalized on the difference (i.e., "spread") between the miniscule rates paid to customers -- currently as low as 0.25% -- and the returns they earned from the use of this low-cost cash. The Defendants' use of the ABD Program to enrich themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to Oppenheimer customers during sky-high interest rate environments breached their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and otherwise violated New York law. The Plaintiff held a standard brokerage account with Oppenheimer. As an Oppenheimer account holder, Plaintiff's cash deposits were swept into the banks that Defendants selected in their discretion at the unreasonably alleged low interest rates. Oppenheimer is a financial services company that conducts business throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Rees, Esq. Scott I. Dion, Esq. Alex Kaplan, Esq. Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq. Stephen R. Astley, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: sastley@rgrdlaw.com arees@rgrdlaw.com sdion@rgrdlaw.com akaplan@rgrdlaw.com rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com - and - Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP 450 7th Ave 38th Floor New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 PATRIOT'S PROMISE: Hunter Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, AMWA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sheena Hunter, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Patriot's Promise, A Place at Home, American Healthcare Solutions LLC and Alexandr Caudill, Case No. 2:25-cv-02006-DJH (D. Ariz., June 10, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation plus interest (pre-judgment and post-judgment), liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and cost under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Arizona Minimum Wage Act, and Arizona Wage Payment Act. During the period relevant to this action, on or about April 2023, through the date of Plaintiff's employment termination on or about August 2024, the Defendants carried out an unlawful payroll policy and practice by failing to pay Plaintiff for all worked hours including overtime compensation as required by federal law. 3 The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the State of Arizona during the period of about April 2023 through August 2024. The Corporate Defendants are each business entities formed under the laws of Arizona with a primary office located within the State of Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Cohen, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 770-7901 Facsimile: (718) 715-1750 E-mail: dcohen@consumerattorneys.com - and - Emanuel Kataev, Esq. SAGE LEGAL 18211 Jamaica Avenue Jamaica, NY 11423-2327 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Cellular: (917) 807-7819 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 E-mail: emanuel@sagelegal.nyc PEPGEN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against PepGen Inc. ("PepGen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PEPG). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information about PepGen's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) PGN-EDO51 was less effective and safe than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) the CONNECT2 study was deficient for purposes of U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval; and (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, PepGen was likely to halt the CONNECT2 study, and PGN-EDO51's clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects were overstated. If you purchased shares of PepGen between March 7, 2024 and March 3, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/pepgen/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is August 8, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] PJ CHEESE: Pays Delivery Drivers Below Minimum Wage, Crawford Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMBRIA CRAWFORD and PHILLIP CURRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PJ CHEESE, INC., PJ LOUISIANA, LLC., PJ UTAH, LLC, PJ CHIPPEWA, L.L.C., and OHIO PIZZA DELIVERY CO. d/b/a "Papa Johns," Case No. 4:25-cv-00063 (E.D. Va., June 10, 2025) seeks to redress the Defendants' systematic policy and practice of paying their delivery drivers net hourly wages below the minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state minimum wage laws. The Defendants and their commonly-owned affiliates together operate nearly 200 Papa Johns' Pizza franchise stores in Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who drive their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers' homes and workplaces. Instead of reimbursing their delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants have used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate below any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the minimum wage, the suit asserts. The primary function of the Defendants' Papa Johns' stores is to sell pizza and other food items to customers, whether they carry out the food or have it delivered. Papa Johns' stores have employed delivery drivers, including Plaintiffs Ambria Crawford and Phillip Curry, who all have the same primary job duty: to deliver pizzas and other food items to customers' homes or workplaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Reid Coploff, Esq. MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: trc@mselaborlaw.com - and - Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, New York 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com PLJ REST: Castaneda Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEONEL CASTANEDA LORENZO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PLJ REST. CORP. (D/B/A NICK'S PIZZA) and DIMITRIOS LEVANTIS, Case No. 1:25-cv-04885 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2025) seeks unpaid minimum wage pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Castaneda was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his workday performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to washing the dishes, cleaning the carpets in the kitchen, sweeping and mopping, washing the pizza basket, cleaning the refrigerator, taking out the garbage, and washing the stairs (non-tipped duties). Accordingly, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants, without appropriate minimum wage for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Castaneda appropriately for any hours worked at the straight rate of pay, says the suit. The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 1814 Second Avenue, 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 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-06818-SRC-AME (D.N.J.), the Court entered an order preliminarily approving proposed class action settlement, scheduling hearing for final approval, and approving form and class notice. Prudential is an American financial services company whose subsidiaries provide insurance, retirement planning, investment management, and other products and services to both retail and institutional customers. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nzb87i at no extra charge.[CC] RB GLOBAL: Controls Construction Equipment Rental Prices, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MCGINNIS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RB GLOBAL, INC.; ROUSE SERVICES LLC; UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; HERC HOLDINGS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., and SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00873 (D. Conn., June 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices nationwide. According to the complaint, Defendant Rouse orchestrated a price-fixing scheme in the construction equipment rental market participated by Rental Company Defendants. Rouse and the Rental Company Defendants have violated and continue to violate U.S. antitrust laws. Instead of setting their rental rates independently, the Rental Company Defendants, who control much of the nation's construction equipment rental market, outsource rate-setting to a common entity-Rouse. By acting collectively through Rouse, the Rental Company Defendants eliminate competition between themselves. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other appropriate relief, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. McGinnis Construction Co., Inc. is a construction company, headquartered in Madison Heights, Michigan. RB Global, Inc. is a public company, headquartered in Illinois. Rouse Services LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of RB Global, Inc., headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. United Rentals, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Connecticut. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in North Carolina. HERC Rentals Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Florida. HERC Holdings Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Florida. H&E Equipment Services, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Louisiana. Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Seligman, Esq. KATZ & SELIGMAN 130 Washington Street Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 547-1857 Facsimile: (860) 241-9127 Email: SSeligman@KatzandSeligman.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Reckitt Benckiser Group plc (OTC PINK:RBGLY) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/reckitt-benckiser-group-plc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=152374&wire=1&utm_campaign=6 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Reckitt Benckiser Group plc that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between January 13, 2021 and July 28, 2024. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) preterm infants were at an increased risk of developing NEC by consuming Reckitt's cow's milk-based formula, Enfamil; (2) of the attendant impact on Reckitt's sales of Enfamil and Reckitt's exposure to legal claims; and (3) as a result of the above, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Reckitt Benckiser Group plc stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/reckitt-benckiser-group-plc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=152374&wire=1&utm_campaign=6 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Islas Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE ISLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-11698-JEK (D. Mass., June 10, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the names, addresses, Social Security Numbers, dates of birth, tax identification numbers, driver's license numbers or state-issued identification card numbers, passport numbers, other government-issued identification numbers, financial account information, payment card information, medical information, and health insurance information of its current and former employees, which resulted in unauthorized access to its, information systems, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members. The Defendant detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems (Data Breach). The Plaintiff and other current and former employees of the Defendant are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of employment, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the employer-employee company relationship has ended. Sensata designs, customizes, and manufactures mission-critical sensors and controls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cassandra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com dlietz@milberg.com - and - David Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com SERVOTRONICS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With TransDigm ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Servotronics, Inc. (NYSE: SVT), relating to the proposed merger with TransDigm Group Incorporated. Under the terms of the agreement, a subsidiary of TransDigm will commence a tender offer to acquire all the outstanding shares of Servotronics for $38.50 per share in cash. ACT NOW. Tender Offer expires for June 30, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/servotronics-inc-svt/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Southern States Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: SSBK), relating to the proposed merger with FB Financial Corporation. Under the terms of the agreement, Southern States' shareholders will receive 0.800 shares of FB Financial common stock for each share of Southern States stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 26, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/southern-states-bancshares-inc-ssbk/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- LENSAR, Inc. (NASDAQ: LNSR), relating to the proposed merger with Alcon. Under the terms of the agreement, LENSAR shareholders will receive $14.00 per share, with an additional non-tradeable contingent value right offering up to $2.75 per share in cash conditioned on the achievement of certain milestones. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 2, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/lensar-inc-lnsr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- iCAD, Inc. (NASDAQ: ICAD), relating to the proposed merger with RadNet, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, iCAD stockholders will receive 0.0677 shares of RadNet common stock for each share of iCAD common stock held at the closing of the merger. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 14, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/icad-inc-icad/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] SKLAR LAW: Class Certification Bids in Green Amended to August 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITRA GREEN, v. SKLAR LAW, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04186-ESK-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Pascal entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. No later than June 6, 2025, the Plaintiff shall produce her responses to the Defendant's written discovery. 2. No later than June 6, 2025, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's written discovery concerning the Defendant's financial information and a schedule for the parties' depositions. 3. No later than June 30, 2025, the Plaintiff shall make a demand. 4. By June 5, 2025, the parties shall serve the Court with an agreed-upon Discovery Confidentiality Order. 5. Pretrial factual discovery is extended to July 15, 2025. 6. Dispositive motions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than Aug. 29, 2025. 7. Class certification motions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than Aug. 29, 2025. 8. The Court will conduct a settlement conference on Aug. 15, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Sklar is a full-service commercial law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ruNYGb at no extra charge.[CC] SOGOTRADE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hou Says ------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN HOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOGOTRADE, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00841 (E.D. Mo., June 10, 2025) arises out of SogoTrade's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in May 2024 to compromise Defendant's network (the Data Breach) that contained personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and other individuals. Despite learning of the Data Breach on or about March 18, 2025, and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach on May 8, 2024, Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach until May 2, 2025, says the suit. Plaintiff Hou is a former investor of SogoTrade. SogoTrade is a Missouri for-profit company organized and headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben A. Aguirre, Esq. 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: ramen@masonllp.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Guzman, writing for CHRON, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit against Southwest Airlines won't go forward after a Texas federal judge granted the carrier's motion to dismiss the suit. First brought forward in August 2021, the proposed lawsuit alleged that Southwest overcharged customers for flights on unsafe Boeing 737 Max 8 jets and didn't fulfill promises regarding safety and proper pilot training. On Monday, Law360 reported that U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright said the consumers had no standing to sue, as they didn't fly on the Max aircraft and didn't plausibly allege concrete injuries. Plaintiffs Christine Monahan, Renee Iannotti and Lillian Taylor alleged safety concerns after a Boeing 737 Max 8 jet was used during a 2018 Lion Air flight that crashed and killed 189 people. An accident report later found that pilots were never told how to quickly respond to malfunctions of the jet's automated flight-control system. Boeing also took full responsibility for the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in March 2019, which had 157 victims. But Albright noted that plaintiffs did not claim to fly on a Max during the class period and they flew on 737s in the Next Generation Line. The move to dismiss the proposed lawsuit comes during a time of heightened concern surrounding air traffic and plane safety. In January 2024, an Alaska Airlines plane experienced a blowout of the aircraft's fuselage, resulting in the grounding of some Boeing 737-9 aircraft afterward. Boeing was tasked with fixing quality issues after that and experienced production delays that resulted in Southwest cutting flight capacity last year. More recently, a passenger jet collided with a Black Hawk helicopter in a deadly crash near Washington, D.C. in January. Still, aviation experts point to overall safety trends. A recent safety report by IATA, the trade association of the world's airlines, found that there was one accident for every 880,000 flights -- or seven fatal accidents out of 40.6 million flights in 2024. Southwest Airlines has not responded to a request for comment on the overcharge lawsuit. But dodging the lawsuit is the latest legal win for the Dallas-based carrier. Last month, the Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss a case brought by the Biden administration in January over claims of "chronically delayed flights." [GN] SPOTHERO INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Pricing Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Landers of Parking Today reports that parking reservation platform SpotHero Inc. is facing a federal class action lawsuit alleging the company engaged in deceptive pricing practices by hiding mandatory service fees until late in the checkout process. The lawsuit, filed April 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, was brought by plaintiff Edward Galvez of San Pedro, California, who seeks to represent California consumers who purchased parking reservations through SpotHero's platform and paid hidden service fees. According to the complaint, SpotHero engaged in so-called drip pricing by advertising parking spots at one price but then adding mandatory "processing" or "service" fees only after customers had already selected their parking spots. Galvez purchased a parking reservation in December 2024 that was initially advertised for $15, the complaint notes, but ultimately cost $16.09 after SpotHero added a $1.09 service fee at the end of the checkout process. "SpotHero's practice of adding fees at the end frustrated comparison shopping, impeded competition, and led consumers to pay more for their parking spots than they otherwise would," the complaint states. According to the complaint, SpotHero changed its pricing practices around April 1, 2025, after receiving a notice letter from the plaintiff's attorneys, and now discloses the full price including service fees upfront. "Through at least March 2025, SpotHero used drip pricing, and hid the true price of the parking spot until the purchase was almost complete," the complaint says. "In late March, Plaintiff sent SpotHero a notice letter regarding its drip pricing practices. In response to receiving the notice letter, on or about April 1, 2025, SpotHero appears to have changed its practices, and now discloses the full price including service fees, upfront." Class could include thousands of consumers The lawsuit alleges that SpotHero's practices violate California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and constitute quasi-contract violations. California strengthened its anti-drip pricing laws in 2023 with Senate Bill 478, which specifically prohibits advertising prices that don't include all mandatory fees, effective July 1, 2024. The proposed class includes California residents who purchased parking spots from SpotHero and paid hidden service fees, with a subclass covering transactions after July 1, 2024, when the enhanced CLRA provisions took effect. Galvez seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees on behalf of the proposed class, which the complaint estimates could include thousands of consumers. Defending the industry Todd Tucker, an attorney and the chief operations officer for Parking Revenue Recovery Services (PRRS), which provides services related to compliance, access monitoring, and dispute processing, contested the complaint's allegation that the fees charged by SpotHero and other parking apps are in any way fraudulent or illegal. "These are simply fees that businesses add, quite reasonably, to cover their admin costs of selling via alternative channels for customer convenience," Tucker told Parking Today. This convenience is "extremely popular with drivers," he said. Tucker noted that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in its January 10, 2025, final rule titled "Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees," indicated that the use of such fees is legal as long as businesses "clearly state and articulate them in the transaction journey," he said. The FTC's final rule became effective May 12, 2025. Given this position by the FTC, "most operators out there will likely only need to 'gross up' their pricing earlier in the transaction search [versus] checkout and clearly break out the added fees and why they exist to be considered legal," Tucker said. Ultimately, companies should "err on the side of transparency and clarity" to limit their chances of attracting legal action like what SpotHero is facing, he noted. More broadly, parking industry leaders need to work with the appropriate regulatory agencies to "craft reasonable guidelines for us to follow as an industry," Tucker said. "We need to hold our parking industry trade organizations accountable to take up these efforts on our behalf with their reach and resources." Looking ahead The case against SpotHero was filed by attorneys Christin Cho and Simon Franzini of Dovel & Luner LLP in Santa Monica. Cho did not respond to requests for comment. SpotHero declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing the pending litigation. The company also declined to answer questions whether it changed its payment policies because of the case. SpotHero has until June 27 to respond to the complaint, according to a May 13 order from Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. [GN] ST. LUKES HOSPITAL: Devaney Seeks Wages & OT Under FLSA, PMWA ------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA DEVANEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ST. LUKES HOSPITAL, Case No. 3:25-cv-01041-RDM (M.D. Pa., June 10, 2025) contends that the Defendant unlawfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals employed in the position of Registered Nurse, or in positions with similar job duties, all wages and overtime compensation owed pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant maintained an unlawful policy and practice of deducting 30 minutes of time for an unpaid meal break each single shift despite Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs rarely, if ever, actually receiving a full, uninterrupted meal break, resulting in Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs being shorted wages and overtime compensation, in violation of the FLSA and PMWA. The Plaintiff also contends Defendant discriminated against and retaliated against her and terminated her employment because of her actual and/or perceived disabilities, because of her record of impairment/disability, for her requesting/requiring reasonable accommodations, and for her requesting/requiring intermittent leave, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania and the United States with a current address of 131 Penn Forest Drive, Albrightsville, PA 18210. St. Lukes Hospital is a nonprofit corporation formed in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jake Daniel Novelli, Esq. Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Murphy Law Group, LLC 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: jnovelli@phillyemploymentlawyer.com murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com TTEC SERVICES: Jenkins Sues Over Failure to Provide Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAYSHAWN JENKINS AND CAMERON HICKMON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TTEC SERVICES CORPORATION, a domestic corporation; TTEC HOLDINGS, INC, a foreign corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00958 (D. Nev., May 30, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for unpaid wages and overtime, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under Nevada Revised Statutes and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay wages for each hour worked, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, and failure to timely pay all wages due and owing at separation of employment. Plaintiff Hickmon worked for the Defendants as a customer service representative at their Customer Experience Center on South Maryland Parkway from February 2, 2023 until her employment was suspended on June 17, 2023. Plaintiff Jenkins also worked for Defendants as a customer service representative at the same location from on April 3, 2023 until he resigned around June 27, 2023. TTEC Services Corporation enters into contracts to provide customer service to various entities with statutory security obligations, such as banks and accountancy practices, for example Bank of America, and healthcare providers, for example Blue Cross/Blue Shield.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Kuller, Esq. Rachel Mariner, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Telephone: (725) 245-6056 Facsimile: (725) 220-1802 E-mail: jason@rafiilaw.com rachel@rafiilaw.com UNITED STATES: Valuta Corp. Balks at Unfair Surveillance Order -------------------------------------------------------------- VALUTA CORPORATION, INC., and PAYAN'S FUEL CENTER, INC., Plaintiffs v. FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK; ANDREA GACKI, in her official capacity as Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SCOTT BESSENT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; and PAM BONDI, in her official capacity as the Attorney General of the United States, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00191 (W.D. Tex., May 30, 2025) challenges a federal surveillance order that demands detailed information about everyday cash transactions in a targeted area along the southwest border. According to the complaint, the order directs check cashers, currency exchangers, and other "money services businesses" in 30 zip codes to report all cash transactions over just $200 to federal law enforcement. Although the order will sweep up information about countless everyday transactions, the government has candidly explained that its purpose is to uncover evidence of crimes by drug cartels. Thus, the government has targeted particular types of businesses and particular types of cash transactions, in a particular geographic area, with an aim to target particular types of criminal actors. And the government has done all this without individualized suspicion or probable cause. In short, the government has issued a general warrant, says the suit. In addition to violating the Fourth Amendment, the government's general warrant will impose ruinous burdens on the targeted businesses, the suit alleges. The government estimates that every cash transaction report takes eight minutes to complete. The true time required is higher. But even accepting the government's estimate, given the number of over-$200 transactions, businesses in the affected zip codes face hours of new paperwork daily. Because the order applies to only certain businesses in certain zip codes, moreover, customers who do not want to provide this information will simply take their business to other stores. As a tool to target criminals, the order will be ineffective -- but it will impose crushing costs on businesses and people who cannot leave the targeted jurisdiction, says the suit. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is a federal bureau tasked with administration and enforcement of the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christen Mason Hebert, Esq. Jeffrey Rowes, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 816 Congress Ave., Suite 970 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 480-5936 E-mail: chebert@ij.org jrowes@ij.org - and - Robert E. Johnson, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 16781 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 256 Shaker Heights, OH 44120 Telephone: (703) 682-9320 E-mail: rjohnson@ij.org VETERANS AFFAIRS: Court Rejects Cy Pres Relief in Nehmer Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs' motion for cy pres award in the case captioned as BEVERLY NEHMER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant, Case No. C 86-06160 WHA (N.D. Cal.). The court held that no such cy pres relief is available under the decree, any statute, or caselaw. This action settled decades ago involves Vietnam War veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military sprayed Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides on dense jungles -- defoliating trees and harming service members. After the war, Congress passed the Dioxin Act of 1984, which directed the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop a framework for granting disability claims to veterans suffering dioxin-related disabilities. The VA's implementing regulations, however, identified only one disease as presumptively caused by dioxin. Plaintiff class members challenged defendant VA in the instant suit, arguing that more diseases were caused by dioxin. Nearly as soon as these Vietnam War Veterans filed suit, however, Congress passed the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which directed the VA to identify still more diseases presumptively caused during their service. The parties agreed to settle the case in 1991. The resulting consent decree required claims to be automatically reopened if they turned on diseases the VA had earlier rejected but later recognized as service related. Since the settlement, newly recognized diseases have prompted Nehmer readjudications and more than $4.5 billion in retroactive payments. For example, in 2010, the VA recognized three more diseases as service related, prompting readjudications for 160,000 veterans. In 2021, the VA recognized another three diseases, prompting another 70,000 readjudications. These readjudications are uniquely required by the consent decree but otherwise largely performed by the VA's ordinary claims processes. The consent decree does not include a time limit sunsetting the opportunity to file claims, nor for sunsetting the VA's obligation to readjudicate such claims. These obligations continue even after the veteran's death. Under preexisting statutory authority related to veterans' claims, if a veteran eligible to receive funding disappears, the VA may pay the veteran's spouse, children, and parents instead. Under the consent decree, the VA is further authorized to pay the Vietnam War Veteran's estate as a final option. Current Dispute Over Unclaimed Funds The instant motion arises because class counsel did not find an eligible payee for 1,137 deceased Vietnam War Veterans whose cases have been readjudicated by the VA in their favor. Two groups are at issue: 1. 268 veterans have eligible survivors whom counsel identified but could not locate despite some effort. That effort included employing private investigators to search public records, commercial databases, and social media -- and making phone calls. That effort did not include posting ads. 2. The remaining 869 veterans lack eligible survivors or a still-open estate. The amount owed these 1,137 veterans totals $63 million, or about $55,000 each. Class counsel now seeks to allocate these funds through a cy pres award. Proposed awardee Legal Services Corporation would use it to oversee a grant program funding still other legal services organizations supporting veterans' interests including for housing, employment, or other issues. Class counsel contends the point of diminished returns has already been passed. Class counsel initially contends that reopening estates will be costly and that estate administrators and state officers will fare no better than counsel at finding beneficiaries. The VA argued that the settlement did not provide for cy pres distribution, that these services are too attenuated from Vietnam War Veterans' interests to merit a cy pres distribution in any case, and that the way Congress appropriated these funds forecloses paying any recipient not recognized by the consent decree. The VA is concerned that if funding is directed to the Legal Services Corporation, then it will not be available should a Vietnam War Veteran's eligible survivor appear. Congress has commanded that the funding must remain available until expended for the instructed uses. Upon careful examination of the motion, the court requested that each side brief the possibility of reopening veterans' closed estates or otherwise distributing funding through veterans' estates. The parties' supplemental briefing confirms that where a class member's estate is closed, it can often be reopened. The briefing further shows that the estate may not need to be reopened at all. According to the court, paying any amounts owed to deceased Vietnam War Veterans to their eligible survivors instead and then to their estates is the default choice required by the consent decree. Any cy pres distribution must account for the nature of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, the objectives of the underlying statutes, and the interests of the silent class members. Class counsel cites no decision that would allow unclaimed funds to go to a cy pres recipient in a settlement with the United States. For 268 deceased veterans, the court finds that the limits of reasonable efforts have not yet been reached. The funds at issue average $55,000 per veteran. This amount warrants repeating the described efforts more than once, and newly placing ads. Only once the limit of reasonable efforts has been reached would the next point apply. For 869 deceased veterans where no eligible survivor exists, the required course is to direct the funding to the class member's estate. Because class counsel has not attempted to pay these Vietnam War Veterans' estates, we have not reached the point where no payee is available under the consent decree. The court finds that reopening estates will not always be required, and where required, it may be reasonable. The court concluded that the consent decree does not authorize a cy pres award. This is not a securities or consumer class action with unclaimed funds. This is a suit against the United States. The district court can order cy pres relief only if authorized by the consent decree, which does not authorize such relief. To do so would, in effect, be ordering Congress to appropriate money to the cy pres nominee, a power federal courts do not have. Accordingly, the court finds that more work must be done. Until paid to veterans, their families, or their estates, the unclaimed funds must remain in place. The funds in question must remain where they are, at the ready, to be paid to the proper claimants. Counsel must redouble their efforts. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=muGrUn VICTORIA'S SECRET: Fails to Protect Customers' PII, Burke Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN WARDLE-BURKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VICTORIA'S SECRET & CO. and VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00618-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, June 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach on or about May 27, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Victoria's Secret & Co. is a specialty retailer of fashion collections, with its principal place of business in Ohio. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC is a company that operates retail stores based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Flick, Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 Email: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, PC 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 Email: firm@attorneyszim.com WATER WIPES: Merlo Sues Over Baby Wipes' False "Plastic-Free" Label ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEVERY MERLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATER WIPES (USA) INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-04640-AGT (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, and State Consumer Protection Statutes, and for breach of express warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Original Baby Wipes. The Defendant represents to consumers that its product is "plastic-free" and pure. However, testing reveals that the product contains significant levels of microplastics. The presence of microplastics is especially concerning considering that the product is meant for use on newborns and young children. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the product or would have purchased it under substantially different terms. WaterWipes (USA), Inc. is a manufacturer of baby wipes, headquartered in New Hampshire. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Renee Wicklund, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 535 Mission St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 259-5688 Email: rwicklund@richmanlawpolicy.com WINE.COM INC: Faces Wilson Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WINE.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06096 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.wine.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on its website, says the suit. Wine.com, Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of wines, champagne, and related accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com XCLUSIVE TRADING: Junani Balks at Unpaid OT, Straight-Time Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mohamed Azaan Junani, Plaintiff v. Xclusive Trading, Inc.; Xclusive Trading Holdings LLC; XT Partners LLC; Ebrahim Muhammad Dhaduk; and Owais Muhammad Dhaduk, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-02527 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants seeking to recover unpaid overtime and straight-time wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, all costs of the action, and post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Junani worked for the Defendants from February 22, 2024 until May 28, 2025. He sues the Defendants to collect his unpaid overtime wages and straight-time pay pursuant to FLSA. Xclusive Trading, Inc. is a company that began as a single retail store and has grown into a vertically integrated distributor, supplier, and retailer of specialty mobile phones, wireless accessories, and a full-service Metro by T-Mobile dealer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. 430 W. Bell Street Houston, TX 77019 Telephone: (713) 898-0982 E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***