250619.mbx

250619.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 19, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 122 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Tull Alleges ABM INDUSTRY: Rodriguez Suit Removed from State Ct. C.D. Cal. ALBERTSON'S LLC: Fails to Disclose Wage Scale, Hill Suit Alleges ALICE + OLIVIA: Faces Price Suit Unlawful "Drip Pricing" Scheme ATHENA BITCOIN: Faces Gnadinger Suit Over Impersonation Scams BANK OF AMERICA: Court Lifts Stay of Unemployment Benefits Suit BETTERHELP INC: Bid for Case Management Conference Tossed BLUE RIDGE: Byles Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA & VOWA CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Hearing on Bid to Toss Khan Suit Set for July COPART OF CONNECTICUT: Burns Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Ala. CRUNCH LLC: Hawkins Class Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal. DBZ ENTERPRISES: Court Narrows Claims in D.B. FAC DELTA STAR: Wilson Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses DELTA STAR: Wilson Suit Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal DIDI GLOBAL: Bid to File Absent Consent Under Seal Granted DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies CECOT Class in Sanchez Suit DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies Class in Kingdom Suit DONALD TRUMP: Noncitizens in Custody Gets Class Certification DONALD TRUMP: Thakur Suit Seeks Class Certification DRAFTKINGS INC: Court Rejects MLB Players Inc's Bid to Appeal DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Action E.I. DUPONT: Products Contain Toxic PFAS, Kennedy Suit Alleges EIDP INC: Bid for Limited Protective Order Tossed EISENHOWER MEDICAL: $875K Settlement Fund Gets Initial Approval ELEGANTE SERVICES: Extension of Upcoming Deadlines Sought ELI LILLY: Bid to Remand Insulin Pricing Suit Tossed EQT CORP: Ross Seeks Leave to Obtain Stay of Class Cert Deadlines EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Class Cert Discovery in Baker Due July 2 EVENT TICKETS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 30, 2026 EVERNORTH HEALTH: Discloses Patients Info to Google, Yates Says FCA US: Joint Bid to Extend Case Schedule Tossed FEVID TRANSPORT: Court Certifies FLSA Overtime Wage Class FLO HEALTH: Parties Seek to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid FLORIDA: Donaldson Seeks to Certify Rule23 Class FLORIDA: Filing of Response to Complaint Extended to June 27 GOOD DAY: Filing for All Motions Extended to July 17 GOTO TECHNOLOGIES: Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to June 30 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class Cert Discovery in Cude Suit Stayed GREIF INC: Class Cert Deposition Discovery Stayed Until August 6 INDEGENE INC: Class Cert Hearing Set for June 30 IQVIA INC: Fischbein Bid for Class Certification Tossed ITHACA COLLEGE: Class Settlement in Akerman Suit Gets Initial Nod JBS LIVE: Fact Discovery in Force Due Jan. 23, 2026 KAISER FOUNDATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 20, 2026 KNIGHT-SWIFT: Court Certifies Classes & Subclasses in Hobbs NEW YORK, NY: Coppola Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA NUTRASTOP LLC: Faces Carle Suit Over Telemarketing Messages OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Abayomi's Class Certification Bid Tossed OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Alich Class Cert Bid Tossed as Moot PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Rejects North's Class Certification Bid PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 27, 2026 RANCHO MESQUITE: Private Mediation Rescheduled to Sept. 19 RENT THE RUNWAY: Continues to Defend Sharma Shareholder Class Suit SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CA: Initial Standing Order Entered in Sable SEADRILL LTD: Appeal of $48MM Judgment in SFL Rig Lawsuit Pending SECURIX LLC: Divine Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SELECT MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Briscoe Says SHOE SHOW: Fails to Pay Store Managers' OT Wages, Harris Alleges SIDEPRIZE LLC: Faces Franks Suit Over Illegal Gambling Websites SMITH'S FOOD: Stolarski Suit Seeks Conditional Certification STAPLES CONTRACT: Felix Seeks to File Confidential Info Under Seal STAPLES CONTRACT: Felix Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action STAPLES CONTRACT: Felix Suit Seeks to Certify Classes, Subclasses STRATFORD UNIVERSITY: $193K awarded to Class Counsel in Rodriguez SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Fite Must File Bid for Class Certification TRANS UNION: Jackson Bid to Seal Class Cert Memo Granted TRANS UNION: Seeks to File Class Cert Response Under Seal TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Court Certifies Classes & Subclasses in BOAGF UNILEVER UNITED: Bid to Dismiss Timmins Suit Tossed UNITED STATES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid UNITED STATES: Gutierrez Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class UNITED STATES: Logan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid UNITED STATES: Seeks Denial of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid UNITED WATER: Settlement Agreement in Knott Suit Gets Final Nod VODAFONE GROUP: Price Increase Class Suit Hearing Set for Dec. 3 WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Bowles Suit WESTECH SECURITY: Court Certifies Carrasquillo Collective Action WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Briefing on Class Cert in Costa Due August 7 WHITE CAP: Class Cert Bids in Lobdell Referred to Magistrate Judge WSAF INC: Cortes Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NYLL ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Filing Amended to Sept. 25, 2026 ********* 3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Tull Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trevor K. Tull v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04758-RMG (D.S.C., May 3o, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER; MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS; HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN; STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT; COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS; STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL; ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS ZUNIGA. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Telephone: (404) 381-2888 E-Mail: buck@lawrsd.com ABM INDUSTRY: Rodriguez Suit Removed from State Ct. C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA E. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV 11930, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 30, 2025. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04925-SPG-AS to the proceedings. The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendant on behalf of herself and the putative class: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked and/or failure to pay overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay, and failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of the California Labor Code. ABM provides facility services in areas such as electrical, lighting, energy, facility engineering, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Laura Fleming, Esq. Sean A. O'Brien, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 E-mail: lf@paynefears.com sao@paynefears.com ALBERTSON'S LLC: Fails to Disclose Wage Scale, Hill Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALBERTSON'S LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as ALBERTSON'S, ALBERTSONS'S DISTRIBUTION CENTER, HAGGEN, SAFEWAY STORE, and SAFEWAY, et al., Case No. 25-2-16131-5 SEA (Wash. Super Ct., King Cty., May 30, 2025) is a class action lawsuit to remedy the Defendants' ongoing violation of Plaintiff and Class members' civil rights. Effective Jan. 1, 2023, employers with 15 or more employees must disclose, in each posting for each job opening, the wage scale or salary range and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation being offered to the hired applicant. Accordingly, the Defendants employ more than 15 individuals. From Jan. 1, 2023, to the present, the Plaintiff and more than 40 Class members applied to job openings with Defendants for positions located in Washington where the postings did not disclose the wage scale or salary range, and/or a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant. The Plaintiff brings this case as a class action against Defendants on behalf of the Class defined as follows: "All individuals who, from January 1, 2023, through the date notice is provided to the Class, applied for a job opening in the State of Washington with Albertson’s LLC; Albertson S Companies Specialty Care, LLC; Albertsons Health, LLC; ASC Media Services, Inc.; Carr-Gottstein Foods Co.; Groceryworks.com Operating Company, LLC; Safeway Gift Cards, LLC; or Safeway, Inc., where the job posting did not disclose a wage scale or salary range, and/or a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant." Excluded from the Class are Defendants and Defendants’ officers, directors, and independent contractors, and any judge to whom this case is assigned, as well as his or her staff and immediate family. Plaintiff Jeffrey Hill resides in Skagit County, Washington and applied for a position with Defendants in the State of Washington. The Defendants include ALBERTSON'S COMPANIES SPECIALTY CARE, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as ALBERTSONS COMPANIES SPECIALTY CARE, LLC; ALBERTSONS HEALTH, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; ASC MEDIA SERVICES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; CARR-GOTTSTEIN FOODS CO., a foreign profit corporation doing business as J.B.GOTTSTEIN & CO. and J.B. GOTTSTEIN WHOLESALE GROUP; GROCERYWORKS.COM OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as SAFEWAY.COM, GROCERYWORKS.COM, GROCERYWORKS.COM OPERATING COMPANY, and GROCERYWORKS; SAFEWAY GIFT CARDS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as SAFEWAY GIFT CARDS LLC; SAFEWAY, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as ALBERTSONS CENTRAL FILL PHARMACY VANCOUVER, CHINA EXPRESS, FAST SHOP, KEIL’S FOOD STORES, SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER, SAFEWAY STORE, SAFEWAY FUEL, SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED – EGG DEALER, SAFEWAY STORES, BAKERY DIVISION, SAFEWAY STORES – GROCERY WAREHOUSE, SAFEWAY CIGARETTE WAREHOUSE, SAFEWAY INC., SAFEWAY STORES INCORPORATED TOBACCO WHS, SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED, SAFEWAY FUEL STATION, SAFEWAY FUEL, SAFEWAY INC. FUEL, SAFEWAY DISTRIBUTION CENTER, SAFEWAY TRAINING SCHOOL, SAFEWAY GROWLER STORE, HAGGEN, HAGGEN MARKET STREET CATERING, SAFEWAY GASOLINE, LAKE TAPPS CORK VINTAGE TAPHOUSE, SAFEWAY BELLEVUE ICE CREAM, SAFEWAY DISTRIBUTION CENTER – KENT DC, SAFEWAY STORE FUEL CENTER, and SAFEWAY STORE, FUEL CENTER; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities. Albertson's LLC operates a chain of grocery stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com ALICE + OLIVIA: Faces Price Suit Unlawful "Drip Pricing" Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- SAUNDRA PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALICE + OLIVIA, LLC, a New York company, Case No. (May 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant utilizes a deceptive and unlawful "drip pricing" scheme to gather undisclosed junk fess from its customers' purchases on its website, www.aliceandolivia.com, in violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, and for unjust enrichment. Drip pricing "is a pricing technique in which firms advertise only part of a product’s price and reveal other charges later as the customer goes through the buying process." The Defendant sells high-end women's clothing products such as dresses, suits, skirts, shorts, bags, accessories, tops, pants, jeans, sweaters, leggings, and clothing "sets" on its website. According to Defendant, it "offers a curated collection of women's clothing, including dresses, gowns, skirts, jumpsuits and rompers, shorts, tops and more! Experience ornate fabrics, vibrant floral-inspired prints, and flattering fits for every occasion." After a consumer finds an item they want to purchase, they can add it to their "bag" which shows the total price minus taxes and shipping. Here, shipping is typically free because Defendant does not charge for ground shipping. It promises that "Ground Shipping is Free Always." The Defendant has been unjustly charging these hidden junk fees for years from thousands or likely tens of thousands or more of its customers, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff brings this actual to halt Defendant's deceptive and unfair practices and to obtain redress on behalf of other consumers that were charged these hidden junk fees. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website and purchased a ruffled tunic top for $252.45, silk blouse for $178.50, and a dress for $660.45. The "shipping" costs stated "FREE." The Defendant is the manufacturer, distributor, and marketer of the clothing products on its website and was the entity charging the hidden junk fess to Plaintiff and the putative Class. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. Kurt D. Kessler, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: craig@crosnerlegal.com kurt@crosnerlegal.com ATHENA BITCOIN: Faces Gnadinger Suit Over Impersonation Scams ------------------------------------------------------------- Rachael Gnadinger, Madeline McCausland, and Joanne Nebus-Horning, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Athena Bitcoin, Inc., Matias Goldenhorn, Sam Nazzaro, Eric Gravengaard, Gilbert Valentine, Routine Management LLC d/b/a Rahway Shell, Emrud Lil d/b/a One Stop Shoppe, Jiah Corp., d/b/a Holmdel Exxon, and John Doe Convenience Stores, Case No. MID-L-003296-25 (New Jersey Sup. Ct., Middlesex Cty., May 30, 2025) is a putative class action under the Consumer Fraud Act and other New Jersey laws to remediate and enjoin the Defendants' knowing facilitation of "impersonation scams" through the criminally negligent operation of "Bitcoin ATMs" which are devices for converting physical cash to Bitcoin cryptocurrency and transferring it to anonymous online accounts called "wallets". According to the complaint, the devices resemble ordinary ATMs and are typically installed in convenience stores, gas station shops, and similar establishments. The Plaintiffs are New Jersey citizens who fell victim and to "impersonation scams" perpetrated by anonymously organized criminals who posed as representatives of tech service companies, banks, and government agencies and convinced the Plaintiffs that they were in imminent financial and legal peril that could only be averted by withdrawing the cash from their bank accounts and depositing it into Athena Bitcoin ATMs at specified New Jersey locations. Athena gladly accepted the Plaintiffs' highly suspicious ATM deposits (which included single-transaction deposits of $34,100, $20,800, $10,000, $9,900 and $5,000 by individuals who Athena knew to be first-time users, including two senior citizens), and, without further scrutiny, transferred the cash (less a 25% fee) as Bitcoin to an unsecured online "wallet" controlled by the scammers, who then transferred the funds to untraceable accounts, foreclosing any possibility of recovery by law enforcement agencies, asserts the suit. Athena Bitcoin, Inc. is a cryptocurrency technology company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry P. Wolfe, Esq. Javier L. Merino, Esq. Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM PC 825 Georges Road, 2nd Floor North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (201) 500-4060 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Court Lifts Stay of Unemployment Benefits Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: BANK OF AMERICA CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS LITIGATION, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order lifting stay. The Court will issue out its ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On March 28, 2025, the Court granted in part a stay of the case pending the United States Supreme Court review of Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Davis, Case No. 24-0304. On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as "improvidently granted" and did to address the question of "whether a federal court may certify a damages class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when the class includes both injured and uninjured class members." Bank of America operates as a financial holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jmJYAw at no extra charge.[CC] BETTERHELP INC: Bid for Case Management Conference Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc. (RE BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order denying request for case management conference to address discovery. The Defendant requests a case management conference be scheduled to "provide guidance to the parties regarding the case schedule and specifically as to fact discovery while Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is being briefed and decided." It is not this court’s practice to bifurcate class and merits discovery, and no such bifurcation has been entered here. Under the referral of all discovery disputes, however, Judge Ryu has full authority to grant or deny, as may appear appropriate, any request to pause or postpone pending or further discovery during class certification proceedings or for other reasons and/or at other times during the pendency of this litigation. The request to schedule a case management conference is denied. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nJea1u at no extra charge.[CC] BLUE RIDGE: Byles Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA & VOWA -------------------------------------------------------------- LEE BAYLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BLUE RIDGE CARGO INC., and FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00047-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va., June 11, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act as well as unpaid regular wages under the Virginia Wage Payment Act. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated are delivery drivers who were paid by the Blue Ridge to deliver packages for Federal Express Corp. Blue Ridge Cargo, Inc. is a freight and logistics company, specifically operating in the freight and logistics services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Hearing on Bid to Toss Khan Suit Set for July ------------------------------------------------------------------- ChargePoint Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2025, that the hearing on the bid to dismiss the Khan federal securities class suit is scheduled on July 16, 2025. A class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed on November 29, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its former officers (the "Class Defendants"). A second class action lawsuit (together with the November 2023 Class Action, the "Class Actions") was filed against the Class Defendants on January 22, 2024. On May 16, 2024, the Court consolidated the Class Actions into one action captioned Khan v. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-06172-NW, appointed two lead plaintiffs, and appointed lead counsel. On July 19, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint which purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023. This Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the Class Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act regarding, (1) ChargePoint's handling of supply chain disruptions; (2) ChargePoint's revenue; and (3) the value of ChargePoint's inventory. Lead Plaintiffs also allege the Class Defendants engaged in a scheme to prematurely recognize revenue in violation of Sections 10(a) and (c) of the Securities and Exchange Act. The Class Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 17, 2024, and the motion is fully briefed. The motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard on July 16, 2025. Headquartered in Campbell, CA, ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. sells hardware, software and services related to the charging of electric vehicles, such as the operation of networked charging stations, across the United States and abroad. The company is listed on NYSE and its single class of common stock trades under the symbol "CHPT." [BN] COPART OF CONNECTICUT: Burns Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Ala. ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON BURNS v. COPART OF CONNECTICUT, INC., et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00920-MHH, Case No. 47-CV-2025-901046 (Filed June 6, 2025) was removed from the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 11, 2025. The Northern District of Alabama Court of Clerk assigned Case No 5:25-cv-00920-MHH to the proceedings. The Plaintiff asserts a variety of claims, both on behalf of herself and a purported class action: breach of express warranties; negligence, negligence per se; wantonness; and negligence, negligent hiring, retention and negligent supervision. The Plaintiff further alleges that Copart unlawfully sold a vehicle with "clean" title but did not disclose the vehicle had been deemed a total loss. Copart is a global online auto auction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael E. Parrish, Esq. Thomas C. Donald, Esq. David A. Holcombe, Esq. ALABAMA CAR LAWYERS, LLC 231 22nd Street South, Suite 203 Birmingham, AL 35233 Telephone: (205) 547 5747 E-mail: mparrish@alabamacarlaw.com cdonald@alabamacarlaw.com dholcombe@alabamacarlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Katherine T. Powell, Esq. Michael B. Beers, Esq. Sarah E. Rawls, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP One Federal Place, Suite 1000 1819 5th Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: (205) 297-2200 Facsimile: (205) 297-2100 E-mail: Katie.Powell@butlersnow.com Mike.Beers@butlersnow.com Sarah.Rawls@butlersnow.com CRUNCH LLC: Hawkins Class Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as HERMAN HAWKINS and AMANI JACKSON, individually, and on behalf all others similarly situated v. CRUNCH, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CASEY CALLANGAN, an individual; JONATHAN MOSOFF, an individual; MAYRA CORTEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV11163 (Filed April 17, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 11, 2025. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05313 to the proceedings. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated individuals consisting of "all non-exempt hourly West Hollywood Crunch employees who provided services in California during the period four years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on such date as may be determined by the Court. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and Class Members for the following Failure to pay all hours worked including overtime; Failure to pay minimum wages; and Failure to provide meal periods. Crunch LLC operates as a health club gym.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq. Isabella L. Shin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com DBZ ENTERPRISES: Court Narrows Claims in D.B. FAC ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.B., et al., individually on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DBZ ENTERPRISES LLC, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-02405-CV-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs first amended class action complaint: -- R.S.'s claims (Counts 4 through 7) are dismissed with leave to amend. D.B. and R.L.'s FAL and breach of implied warranty claims (Counts 2 and 5) are also dismissed with leave to amend. -- D.B. and R.L.'s requests for injunctive relief in connection with their UCL and CLRA claims (Counts 1 and 3) are dismissed with leave to amend. -- The Motion is denied with regards to the remaining aspects of D.B. and R.L.'s UCL and CLRA claims (Counts 1 and 3). -- The Motion is also denied with regards to D.B. and R.L.'s quasi-contract and fraudulent omission claims (Counts 6 and 7). The Court finds that it would be premature to decide this issue at the motion to dismiss stage. Furthermore, although DBZ provided a choice of law analysis, the analysis was not exhaustive. "Both parties should have an opportunity to more fully develop their analyses at the class certification stage, after discovery has taken place." Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' nationwide class claims on this basis. On February 7, 2025, DBZ moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' D.B., R.L., and R.S.'s FAC. On March 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion. On April 4, 2025, DBZ filed a reply brief in support of its Motion. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on November 4, 2024. After DBZ filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on Jan. 24, 2025. In the FAC, Plaintiffs D.B. and R.L. assert the following causes of action individually and on behalf of "All persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased [DBZ’'s kratom products] while in California:" (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Count 1); (2) violation of California’s False Advertising Law (FAL) (Count 2); and (3) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Count 3). Additionally, the Plaintiff R.S., individually and on behalf of "All persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased [DBZ's kratom products] while in Oregon," asserts a claim for violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (OUTPA) (Count 4). Finally, the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of "All persons nationwide who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased [DBZ's kratom products]," assert the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty (Count 5); (2) unjust enrichment (Count 6); and (3) fraud by omission (Count 7). The Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential, punitive, and statutory damages, prejudgment interest, restitution and disgorgement, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and costs. DBZ specializes in offering a range of high-quality kratom products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nJQjbU at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA STAR: Wilson Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 4, 2025, will move the Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 for an order certifying the following classes and subclasses: (a) Rounding Class: "all of the Defendant's hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California whose punch-in and out times were rounded to their scheduled shift times during the period from Feb. 18, 2017 through the present"; (b) Automatic Deduction Class: "all of the Defendant's hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California who had a half hour deducted from their paychecks for a meal period, during the period from Feb. 18, 2017 through the present"; (c) Meal Break Punch-Out Class: "all of the Defendant's hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California who clocked out for meal periods and were not provided with a full, uninterrupted 30- minute meal break before the end of the fifth hour of work and did not receive premium wages during the period from Feb. 18, 2017 through the present"; (d) Regular Rate Overtime Class: "all of Defendant’s hourly-paid or non-exempt manufacturing employees within the State of California who received nondiscretionary bonuses that were not factored into the regular rate for the purposes of calculating overtime, during the period from February 18, 2017 to the present;" (e) Regular Rate Sick Pay Class: "all of the Defendant's hourly-paid or non-exempt manufacturing employees within the State of California who received nondiscretionary bonuses that were not factored into the regular rate for the purposes of calculating sick pay, during the period from February 18, 2017 to the present; (f) Tool Reimbursement Subclass: "all of Defendant’s hourly-paid or nonexempt employees within the State of California who purchased hand tools in order to perform their job duties that were not reimbursed by Defendant, and who were paid less than two (2) times the state minimum wage during the period from February 18, 2017 to the present;" (g) Terminated Employee Subclass: "all of Defendant's hourly-paid or nonexempt employees within the State of California who worked during the period from Feb. 18, 2018, to the present, and who were not properly paid all wages on termination or within 72 hours thereof; (h) Wage Statement Subclass: "all of Defendant’s hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California who received an itemized wage statement during the period from February 18, 2020 to the present." (i) UCL Subclass: "all of Defendant's hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California during the period from Feb. 18, 2017, to the present." Delta is in the transformer manufacturing and substation services space, providing electricity across the nation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kO3WPl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com tlux@justicelawcorp.com DELTA STAR: Wilson Suit Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. Delta is in the transformer manufacturing and substation services space, providing electricity across the nation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2I5o5X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com tlux@justicelawcorp.com DIDI GLOBAL: Bid to File Absent Consent Under Seal Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to file under seal absent consent of the designating party or a contrary order from the Court, and the producing party to file a letter explaining the sealing reasons. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain the viewing restrictions on the exhibits filed at ECF No. 346. This resolves the motion at ECF No. 391. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n7Kink at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019-6022 Telephone: (212) 408-2409 E-mail: jrosenberg@omm.com DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies CECOT Class in Sanchez Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.G.G., LIYANARA SANCHEZ, as next friend on behalf of FRENGEL REYES MOTA, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge James E. Boasberg entered an order memorandum; -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction; -- granting their motion for class certification as to the CECOT Class, subject to the revisions previously discussed; and -- denying without prejudice their motion for class certification as to the criminal custody class. The CECOT Class is defined as: "All noncitizens removed from U.S. custody and transferred to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador on March 15 and 16, 2025, pursuant solely to the Presidential Proclamation entitled, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua."" The Plaintiffs and their next friends are seeking to vindicate fundamental rights and, given their vulnerable status, in all likelihood lack the monetary resources necessary to post a bond. Because the Court has not decided the exact scope of the remedy, it is difficult at this point to assess the potential costs to the Government. The Court, however, recognizes that Defendants will have to deploy some of their resources in order to facilitate Plaintiffs’ ability to seek habeas review. Given that reality and the uncertain nature of courts’ ability to forgo a bond altogether, the Court will require Plaintiffs to post a bond. In light of the circumstances and nature of this case, it finds that a nominal amount is proper and exercises its discretion to require Plaintiffs to collectively post $1.00. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CpJz1K at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies Class in Kingdom Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISHEA KINGDOM, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00691-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and their motion for a preliminary injunction. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RwaaVV at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Noncitizens in Custody Gets Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARWIN ANTONIO AREVALO MILLAN, on his own and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity; et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-01207-JWH-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered an order regarding Petitioner-Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order and motion for class certification as follows: 1. Arevalo's instant motion and application are granted in part. 2. The following class is certified, for the limited purpose of granting preliminary injunctive relief: "All noncitizens in custody in the Central District of California who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua" and/or its implementation, with the exception of any noncitizen who filed an individual habeas petition prior to the commencement of this action." 3. The Government is preliminarily enjoined and restrained from removing Arevalo, or any member of the putative class, under the AEA or Proclamation No. 10903, pending further Order of this Court. 4. The Government is further preliminarily enjoined and restrained from transferring Arevalo, or any member of the putative class, out of this judicial district for any purpose other than executing a removal order lawfully issued under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 5. Arevalo is directed to post a bond in the nominal sum of $1 no later than June 16, 2025. 6. This Order shall not prevent the Government from releasing from detention Arevalo or any class member. Similarly, this Order shall not prevent the Government from removing Arevalo or any class member pursuant to a removal order lawfully issued under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Defendants include KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; PETE HEGSETH, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense, in his official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of State, in his official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DAVID MARIN, in his official capacity as Director of the Los Angeles Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; FERETI SEMAIA, in his official capacity as Warden of the GEO Group Adelanto ICE Processing Center and Desert View Annex; and DOES 1-10. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3FFDDg at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Thakur Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEETA THAKUR, KEN ALEX, NELL GREEN NYLEN, ROBERT HIRST, CHRISTINE PHILLIOU, and JEDDA FOREMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04737-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order: -- certifying the proposed UC Researchers Class, and -- appointing Plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the Class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4), (b)(2), and (g). The Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)-(4) and 23(b)(2) and move for its certification. The Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of themselves, and all similarly situated University of California researchers, whose federallyfunded grants have been or will be imminently terminated or suspended by Defendants. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class (the "Plaintiff Class"), sometimes referred to collectively for convenience as "UC researchers", and defined as and consisting of: "All University of California researchers, including faculty, staff, academic appointees, and employees across the University of California system ("UC researchers") whose research grants have been or will be terminated, denied, suspended, or reduced by any of the Defendants pursuant to Executive Orders 14151, 14154, 14158, 14168, 14173, 14217, 14238, and/or 14222, and/or other directives of the Trump administration or DOGE, from and after Jan. 20, 2025." The Defendants include DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY ("DOGE"); AMY GLEASON, in her official capacity as Acting Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency; NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; BRIAN STONE, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the National Science Foundation; NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES; MICHAEL MCDONALD, in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; LEE ZELDIN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; BROOKE ROLLINS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; AMERICORPS (a.k.a. the CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE); JENNIFER BASTRESS TAHMASEBI, in her official capacity as Interim Agency Head of AmeriCorps; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PETE HEGSETH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; LINDA MCMAHON, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; CHRIS WRIGHT, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL; MATTHEW BUZZELLI, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MARTIN A. MAKARY, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; UNITED STATES NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH; JAYANTA BHATTACHARYA, in his official capacity as Director of the National Institutes of Health; INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES; KEITH SONDERLING, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DOUG BURGUM, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of State; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; SEAN DUFFY, in his official capacity as Secretary for the U.S. Department of Transportation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=INYc40 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erwin Chemerinsky, Esq. Claudia Polsky, Esq. U.C. BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW Law Building Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 Telephone: (510) 642-6483 E-mail: echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu cpolsky@law.berkeley.edu - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Kevin R. Budner, Esq. Annie M. Wanless, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com rheimann@lchb.com kbudner@lchb.com awanless@lchb.com - and - Anthony P. Schoenberg, Esq. John J. Darin, Esq. Katherine T. Balkoski, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 E-mail: tschoenberg@fbm.com jdarin@fmb.com kbalkoski@fbm.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Court Rejects MLB Players Inc's Bid to Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen Marston of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied DraftKings Inc.'s motion to certify portions of the court's ruling for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) in the case captioned as MLB PLAYERS, INC., v. DRAFTKINGS, INC., Case No. 24-4884-KSM (E.D. Pa.). The motion for certification is denied in its entirety. MLB Players, Inc. brought statutory and common law claims against DraftKings, Inc. for misappropriation of publicity and unjust enrichment related to the unauthorized use of the names, images, and likenesses of Major League Baseball players in its online and mobile sportsbook platforms and related social media posts. On March 14, 2025, the court, with one exception, denied DraftKings's motion to dismiss. DraftKings subsequently moved to certify portions of the court's ruling for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). MLBPI opposed the motion. The court established that generally, an order denying a dispositive motion is not immediately appealable because it is not a final judgment. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), however, a district court may certify an interlocutory order for immediate appeal when it involves a controlling and uncertain legal issue. An issue is properly certified for interlocutory appeal under Section 1292(b) when it: (1) involves a controlling question of law (2) offers substantial ground for difference of opinion as to its correctness (3) if immediately appealed will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. DraftKings moved to certify four questions for appeal: Issue 1: Does DraftKings' use of MLB player images as alleged in the Complaint fall within the scope of the exception under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 8316(e)(2)(ii) for "news report or news presentation having public interest" and the coextensive Pennsylvania common law exception? Issue 2: As a matter of law, must a cause of action for unjust enrichment in a right of publicity case be dismissed where there is not a relationship between the parties? Issue 3: Can a plaintiff purporting to represent a group of individuals circumvent the rules for class actions by bringing a claim under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 8316(a) and Pennsylvania common law, when both provide only that an individual can bring a claim for the unauthorized use of her or his name or likeness? Issue 4: Can a sublicensee, rather than the individual allegedly affected, bring a claim for unauthorized use of name or likeness under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 8316(b)(4) and Pennsylvania common law? The court determined that certification is not appropriate as to Issues 3 and 4 because neither issue was adequately raised in DraftKings's briefing on the motion to dismiss or resolved by the March 14, 2025 Memorandum. Regarding Issue 3, DraftKings conceded that the March 14, 2025 Memorandum "did not squarely address the propriety of MLBPI's suing under a group licensing theory," nor did it address the "fact that the Statute and common law do not recognize suits based on group rights." The court found that DraftKings did not adequately raise the propriety of group licensing as an issue in its briefing on the motion to dismiss. In its initial briefing, DraftKings made two related, though distinct, arguments: DraftKings argued that MLBPI failed to identify the "natural persons" on whose behalf it was bringing its statutory and common law claims, and it argued that MLBPI failed to allege that it was authorized to bring its statutory claim. The court concluded that DraftKings tries to rewrite history and say it has consistently argued that "neither the Statute nor common law permit right of publicity suits based on a group licensing right." Because DraftKings did not adequately raise the issue below, and the court did not rule on it in the March 14, 2025 Memorandum, immediate appeal is not appropriate. Similarly, Issue 4 was also not adequately raised in DraftKings' briefing on the motion to dismiss. A review of that brief shows that DraftKings initially argued only that MLBPI failed to allege facts to show that MLBPI, as opposed to the Players' Association, had authority to assert the players' NIL claims. The court reasonably did not view DraftKings to be raising that drastic position in a single paragraph of a reply brief that lacked legal support and a thorough discussion of the issue. Because the court did not rule on that legal issue, immediate appeal is also inappropriate as to Issue 4. Issues 1 and 2 are a closer call. In Issue 1, DraftKings challenges the court's ruling on the scope of the statutory and common law exceptions for "news report or news presentation having public interest" (the "Public Interest Exceptions"). Even assuming that this issue involves a "controlling question of law," on which there may be "substantial ground for difference of opinion," the court does not agree that reversal on appeal is likely to result in disposition of Counts I and II or otherwise "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." The court explained that the Complaint includes numerous examples of how DraftKings has used player NILs across its platforms, and "it is premature to hold as a matter of law that" all of those uses are "news reports" such that they fall within the scope of the Public Interest Exceptions. Even if the Third Circuit adopted DraftKings's interpretation of the Public Interest Exceptions, it remains premature to rule on the factual question of whether those uses are "newsworthy." As such, reversal will not "lead to dismissal with prejudice" as DraftKings contended. For Issue 2, even assuming that Issue 2 involves a "controlling question of law," on which there may be "substantial ground for difference of opinion," DraftKings has not shown that immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation. The court added that Issue 2 affects only the unjust enrichment claim (Count IV), meaning that even if the Third Circuit ruled in DraftKings's favor, reversed this court's prior holding, and dismissed Count IV in its entirety, Counts I and II would remain and proceed with discovery, dispositive motions, and trial, if necessary. The court declined to certify Issues 1 and 2 for immediate appeal, finding that early clarification on these issues does not sufficiently outweigh the concerns of confusion and delay caused by piecemeal litigation. The court noted that avoiding piecemeal appeals will permit the Court of Appeals to have the entire controversy presented to it at one time, on a fully developed record from which it can make a final determination of the issues in the case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7nh2jG DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN SAUNDERS, v. DYCK O'NEAL, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00335-RJJ-MV (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following Rule 23(b)(3) class in this action: "All persons to whom one or more VoApps messages was successfully delivered to their cellular telephone number from Dyck O'Neal, where Dyck O'Neal's records contain no reference to the consumer providing such number to the creditor or Dyck O'Neal before such direct drop." The Plaintiff further asks that the Court appoint the Plaintiff as class representative and appoint her counsel as class counsel. Dyck O'Neal operates as a debt collection law firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=44AsYh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis St., Ste. 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com - and - Larry P. Smith, Esq. David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 5250 Old Orchard Rd., Ste. 300 Skokie, IL 60077 Telephone: (844) 424-7135 E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com dmarco@smithmarco.com E.I. DUPONT: Products Contain Toxic PFAS, Kennedy Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MELVA KENNEDY; ADAM SAGER; PEGGY RAINBOW; JAMES RATCLIFFE; MARY ANN WHITE; CURTIS HANSON; and WILMA GILLESPIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; and CORETEV, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04832-RMG (D.S.C., June 3, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendants' widespread contamination of water intended for distribution to consumers and users with per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), a family of chemical compounds that includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants developed, manufactured, formulated, distributed, sold, transported, stored, loaded, mixed, applied and used PFAS alone or in end products that contain PFAS as an active ingredient, byproduct or degradation product (collectively referred to as "Defendants' PFAS"). These end products include aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF"), Teflon, Scotchguard, waterproofing compounds, stainproofing compounds, paper and cloth coatings, waxes, and various other products. The Defendants developed, manufactured, formulated, distributed, sold, transported, stored, loaded, mixed, applied and/or used Defendants' PFAS with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment when used as directed, instructed and/or intended. Defendants were also aware that Defendants' PFAS would be and have been used, released, stored, and/or disposed of at, near or within the vicinity of the drinking water supplies of the Proposed Class Representatives and Class members, and that they would enter the environment, migrating through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater and thereby contaminating or threatening to contaminate the drinking water supplies of the Proposed Class Representatives and Class members. As a result of their exposure to Defendants' PFAS that were applied, used and/or disposed of as directed, instructed and/or intended, PFAS compounds have either been detected in the Class Members' drinking water supplies and/or their water supplies are threatened with such detection, says the suit. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Company provides technology based materials and solutions. The Company offers a diverse range of products, such as construction materials, adhesives, electronic, fabrics, fibers, home garden, medical devices, resins, printing, and consumer products. DuPont de Nemours serves energy, automotive, construction, government, military, safety, and packaging industries globally. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip D. Barber, Esq. RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A. 1410 Laurel Street Post Office Box 1090 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 252-4848 Facsimile: (803) 252-4810 Email: pdb@harpootlianlaw.com - and - Fletcher Trammell, Esq. TRAMMELL PC 3262 Westheimer, Suite 423 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (800) 405-1740 Facsimile: (800) 532-0992 Email: fletch@trammellpc.com - and - Robert W. Cowan, Esq. BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC 1360 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 Email: brcowan@bchlaw.com EIDP INC: Bid for Limited Protective Order Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN, et al., v. EIDP, INC. et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-40026 (D. Mass., Filed Feb. 23, 2025), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order granting motion for clarification, and denying Motion for Protective Order. All discovery existing in Ryan I shall be shared with the Ryan II parties. The process should begin now if it has not already. However, the Ryan II parties may not rely on any discovery from Ryan I for their motions to dismiss filings. The motions to dismiss shall be based solely on the four corners of the Ryan II amended complaint. Further, discovery of the Ryan II Defendants and any new deposition discovery of Ryan I defendants shall be stayed until the Aug. 6, 2o25, when the Ryan II Defendants' replies to Plaintiffs' opposition to any motions to dismiss are due. Non-deposition discovery between the Plaintiffs and Ryan I Defendants should continue on during this time and any new disclosures should be made available to the Ryan II Defendants. Regarding the scope of class certification briefing in Ryan II, the Court finds it premature to limit the scope at this time. The Plaintiffs will be afforded the standard protections for sensitive personal medical or identifying information. There will be no delay in producing the records in question to the Ryan II Defendants, which is in line with the Court's order that discovery from Ryan I be made available to the Ryan II Defendants. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage.[CC] EISENHOWER MEDICAL: $875K Settlement Fund Gets Initial Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as B.K. et al., v. Eisenhower Medical Center et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-02092-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval. The Agreement is preliminarily approved as potentially fair, reasonable, and adequate for members of the settlement class. However, in their motion for final approval, Plaintiffs shall address the concerns raised above. The following Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes only: "All identifiable individuals who logged into the EMC MyChart patient portal, and/or submitted an online form and/or scheduled a laboratory appointment on EMC's public website www.eisenhowerhealth.org, in the time frame of Jan. 1, 2019, to May 3, 2023." The Court appoints Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. and Almeida Law Group, LLC, to serve as counsel on behalf of the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement only. Plaintiffs B.K. and N.Z. are appointed as the representatives of the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement only. The Court appoints EAG Gulf Coast, LLC as the settlement administrator. The Court approves, as to form and content, the E-Mail Notice, Postcard Notice, and Claim Form. The Court approves the methods for giving notice of the Agreement to the Settlement Class, as stated in the Agreement and the Motion. No later than 15 days after the entry of this Order, Defendant shall provide the Settlement Class List to the Settlement Administrator. No later than 30 days after the entry of this Order, the Settlement Administrator shall disseminate the E-Mail Notice or Postcard Notice to the Settlement Class. The Objection Deadline shall be 60 calendar days after the Notice Date. The Exclusion Deadline shall be 60 calendar days after the Notice Date. The Claims Deadline shall be 90 calendar days after the Notice Date. Class Counsel’s Motions for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Payments shall be filed 14 court days prior to the Objection / Exclusion Deadline. The Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Monday, October 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. The June 9, 2025, hearing is vacated. The Agreement provides for a non-reversionary cash Settlement Fund of $875,000 to pay (i) all Administrative Expenses; (ii) any Taxes; (iii) any Cash Compensation to Settlement Class Members, (iv) any court-approved Service Awards; and (v) any court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs. Excluded from the Class are EMC and its affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, officers, and directors, as well as the judge(s) presiding over this matter and their clerks. Eisenhower is a health care organization offering a wide range of clinical services to patients in Southern California. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2saMdu at no extra charge.[CC] ELEGANTE SERVICES: Extension of Upcoming Deadlines Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez et al., v. Elegante Services Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02058-JPO-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a brief extension of the upcoming deadlines with respect to the Plaintiffs recently filed motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The current deadline for the Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion is June 12th, and the current deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply is June 19th. The parties request the following modified briefing schedule: Defendants' Opposition: July 2, 2025 Plaintiffs' Reply: July 16, 2025 A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wCo2HV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua Beldner, Esq. TILTON BELDNER LLP 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: (516) 262-3602 Facsimile: (516) 324-3170 ELI LILLY: Bid to Remand Insulin Pricing Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as People of The State of California et al v. Eli Lilly and Company et al. (RE: INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-11488-BRM-RLS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti denies the People's motion to remand. Because the People have not foreclosed "any basis for federal officer removal," the People's renewed Motion for Remand on the basis of their disclaimer is denied. The People bring this suit against three manufacturers of insulin: Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (the Manufacturer Defendants); and three pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), who manage the relationships between insurance providers and Manufacturer Defendants: Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx, Inc. (PBM Defendants). Generally, the People allege the PBM Defendants conspired with the Manufacturer Defendants to artificially and unconscionably raise the price of insulin paid by California diabetics. On Jan. 12, 2023, the People filed its Complaint in this matter in Los Angeles County Superior Court. On March 15, 2023, Express Scripts removed the action to the Central District of California, invoking the federal officer removal statute. Eli is an American multinational pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gb4WKa at no extra charge.[CC] EQT CORP: Ross Seeks Leave to Obtain Stay of Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION; EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY; RICE DRILLING B, LLC; VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC; and VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to obtain stay of all class certification deadlines pending replacement of allegedly conflicted expert Witness John Whipkey, Esq. The Plaintiffs request that all pending class certification deadlines, including expert discovery relating to title experts, be stayed for 60 days to allow the Plaintiffs to secure a replacement title expert. The Defendants consent to this request and agree that it is warranted under these circumstances. As such, the Parties are effectively seeking leave through this motion to amend the scheduling order. Additionally, the Plaintiffs are requesting that Defendants, to the extent they continue to claim an "irreconcilable" conflict relating to Mr. Whipkey, present proof of a valid irreconcilable legal conflict to justify Mr. Whipkey's abrupt removal as the Plaintiffs' expert witness. The Plaintiffs will withdraw this request if the Defendants acknowledge the lack of any such conflict. To that end, and to provide clearer context to the Court, it is the undersigned's present understanding that Clark Hill has instructed Mr. Whipkey that he must terminate his services in this matter, for reasons known to Clark Hill. The Plaintiffs aver that there are no irreconcilable legal grounds for termination of Mr. Whipkey's services as an expert in this case, especially considering he has already issued his report, his report has been filed on the public docket, and he has already committed to testifying. Moreover, Clark Hill's business interests are not a valid reason to tell Mr. Whipkey not to testify under these circumstances. This interference is both unjustified and prejudicial to the Plaintiffs and the putative class . Accordingly, the Plaintiffs will require additional time to identify and secure an expert witness unburdened by the challenges injected into this matter by Clark Hill's business interests with EQT. Relatedly, Mr. Whipkey's expert report plays a material role in the class certification issues being addressed before this Court. Thus, the parties agree that all pending class certification deadlines should be stayed pending the resolution of this issue. If the Court wishes, Plaintiffs are prepared to meet with the Court, or to take such evidence as the Court might deem appropriate or, alternatively, present oral argument in support of their position. On April 30, 2025, Plaintiffs served the expert report of John Whipkey, Esquire, whose CV is docketed at ECF No. 111-2, as a consulting and testifying expert witness relating to title issues in this matter. Mr. Whipkey's expert report was served in connection with Plaintiffs' class certification filing. At the time Plaintiffs served Mr. Whipkey's report, Mr. Whipkey was professionally associated as Of Counsel with Bernstein-Burkley, P.C. On May 23, 2025, Defendants served the expert report of Jesse J. Zirillo, Esquire, in response to Mr. Whipkey’s report. Thereafter, the Parties exchanged deposition dates for Mr. Whipkey’s and Mr. Zirillo’s depositions. In May 2025, Mr. Whipkey joined the law firm of Clark Hill, PLC as Of Counsel As of this filing, Plaintiffs' counsel are unaware of any actual, legal conflict associated with Mr. Whipkey’s retention in this matter. On June 5, 2025, however, the Plaintiffs were informed that Clark Hill had instructed Mr. Whipkey that he was not to continue his service as an expert witness in this matter, despite the fact that his report, based solely on public information and the record as already developed, was issued more than a month ago and prior to his association with Clark Hill. Accordingly, Mr. Whipkey notified the undersigned counsel on June 5, 2025, that, pursuant to the instructions given to him by his new law firm, he could no longer serve as an expert witness in this case. Mr. Whipkey’s deposition had been scheduled for June 6, 2025, but his deposition cannot move forward due to the purported prohibition on his involvement. EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and pipeline transport. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=InmEkE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Pietragallo, II, Esq. P. Brennan Hart, Esq. Matthew R. Barnes, Esq. PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 263-1818 E-mail: wp@pietragallo.com pbh@pietragallo.com mrb@pietragallo.com - and - Scott M. Hare, Esq. Anthony T. Gestrich, Esq. RAINES FELDMAN LITTRELL LLP 11 Stanwix Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 - and - Matthew T. Logue, Esq. QUINN LOGUE LLC 200 First Avenue, Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 765-3800 E-mail: matt@mattlogue.com - and - Alex J. Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4470 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: ajd@kellerpostman.com EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOE, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01124-RBW (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a Plaintiff Class of all individuals whose names and other personal information are requested in EEOC's investigative letters. Accordingly, the Court should certify a class of all affected individuals, appoint the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel. The Defendants have unlawfully solicited the personal information of thousands of law students and lawyers. In accordance with Local Civil Rule 7(m), counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Defendants regarding the instant Motion via email on June 4, 2025. Equal enforces laws that make discrimination illegal in the workplace. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XKG0XB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq. Sarah Goetz, Esq. Audrey Wiggins, Esq. Orlando Economos, Esq. Sunu P. Chandy, Esq. Skye Perryman, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: jconnolly@democracyforward.org sgoetz@democracyforward.org awiggins@democracyforward.org oeconomos@democracyforward.org schandy@democracyforward.org sperryman@democracyforward.org EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Class Cert Discovery in Baker Due July 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BAKER, et al, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04004-VMC-RDC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Regina D. Cannon entered an order granting the parties motion to revise the scheduling order and extending the discovery deadline. 1. The deadline for class certification discovery is July 2, 2025. 2. The deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is Aug. 1, 2025. 3. The Defendant's opposition response must be filed by Sept. 1, 2025. 4. The Plaintiff's reply must be filed by Sept. 15, 2025. Equifax collects and organizes data on most adult Americans to generate consumer reports, which it sells to creditors and other businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0lI1yt at no extra charge.[CC] EVENT TICKETS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 30, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EVENT TICKETS CENTER, INC., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-04142-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting the parties' joint stipulation to modify: 1) briefing schedule for defendant's motion to compel arbitration, and 2) case management scheduling order. The following dates and deadlines are modified as follows: Event Current Date New Date Plaintiffs' Opposition to June 6, 2025 June 20, 2025 Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration: Defendant's Reply in Support of June 13, 2025 June 30, 2025 its Motion to Compel Arbitration: Deadline to File Motion for Aug. 1, 2025 Jan. 30, 2026 Class Certification: Deadline to File Opposition to Sept. 8, 2025 Mar. 31, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: Deadline to File Reply to Motion Oct. 6, 2025 Apr. 30, 2026 for Class Certification: Hearing on Motion for Class Oct. 16, 2025 May 14, 2026 Certification: Completion of Non-Expert Jan. 1, 2026 Apr. 30, 2026 Discovery: Completion of Expert Discovery: Mar. 20, 2026 Apr. 30, 2026 Event is an online resale marketplace, providing access to thousands of tickets for a variety of live entertainment events. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xDrC94 at no extra charge.[CC] EVERNORTH HEALTH: Discloses Patients Info to Google, Yates Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN YATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVERNORTH HEALTH, INC. and MDLIVE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02773-PD (May 30, 2025) is a class action suit on behalf of all persons who accessed their private patient portal, either directly through the website www.mdlive.com, or through their online healthcare account with Cigna Healthcare. According to the complaint, the Defendants disclosed the confidential and protected health information of their patients to Google LLC and Meta Platforms without their knowledge or consent. Such disclosures were made due to the value such formation maintains for advertising purposes. Given this value, companies like Defendants and the Third Parties go to great lengths to intercept such information for use in their targeted advertising campaigns. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal acts. The Plaintiff was a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff used Defendants’ telehealth platform to schedule several medical appointments between August 28, 2022, and November 22, 2023, while in Pennsylvania. Cigna partners with Defendants for the provision of telehealth services for all Cigna policy holders. Once logged into their Cigna account, consumers can click a link for telehealth services, which will redirect them to the MD Live Website, where they can search for and schedule medical appointments. MD Live is a telehealth provider that offers virtual medical treatment and services to patients across the country. MD Live was acquired by Evernorth in 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Atlee, Esq. ATLEE HALL, LLP 415 North Duke Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Telephone: (717) 393-9596 Facsimile: (717) 393-2138 E-mail: mcatlee@atleehall.com - and - Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: aleslie@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com FCA US: Joint Bid to Extend Case Schedule Tossed ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crowell v. FCA U.S. LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00013 (D. Del., Filed Jan. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Maryellen Noreika entered an order denying the Parties' joint motion to extend the case schedule: Nonetheless, the Court will permit the parties to extend any current deadlines, so long as briefing on class certification and Daubert motions is completed by the current Dec. 22, 2025 deadline. (D.I. 82). Neither that deadline nor any after it will be extended. If the parties wish to make any changes to the current schedule that the Court has now permitted, they shall submit a revised proposed order within five (5) days of this Order. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans.[CC] FEVID TRANSPORT: Court Certifies FLSA Overtime Wage Class --------------------------------------------------------- United States District Judge Margaret Strickland of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification in the case captioned as CHESTER DEES, v. FEVID TRANSPORT, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00873-MIS-KK (D.N.M.). The court conditionally certified a collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labour Standards Act (FLSA) with specific modifications to the proposed class definition. This action seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Defendants formerly employed Plaintiffs as truck drivers to haul loads of sand in New Mexico on twelve- to fourteen-hour shifts following a "5-2-5-3" schedule. Defendants improperly classified Plaintiffs and other truck drivers as exempt from overtime wage provisions, paid them the same rate regardless of hours worked, and failed to compensate them at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours exceeding forty per week. Defendants also failed to pay for shop time, breakdown time, wait time, "deadhead trips between locations," mandatory meetings, or any non-driving time. On August 30, 2024, Plaintiffs Chester Dees, Marcus Hubbard, Wanda Kirkpatrick, and Jimmy Santana filed this lawsuit as a class and collective action. The proposed class definition included: "All of Defendants' current and former truck drivers who hauled loads in New Mexico, worked over 40 hours in at least one week within the 3 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit, and were not paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Class Certification on April 3, 2025, arguing they are similarly situated to other drivers employed by Defendants. All putative class members were drivers who hauled sand throughout New Mexico, performing duties including waiting between load pick-ups and drop-offs, "deadhead" travel between locations, traveling to reject locations, completing paperwork, and attending mandatory meetings. Plaintiffs contended members commonly worked 12 to 14-hour shifts on the 5-2-5-3 schedule, exceeding 40 hours weekly. All were paid "partially fixed and partially variable rates based on the number of loads delivered" according to Defendants' rate sheets, which confirmed drivers were paid per loaded mile rather than hourly. Plaintiffs argued all collective members were victims of Defendants' failure to pay overtime rates for hours exceeding forty per week. The Motion requested: (1) Conditional certification as a collective action for Fevid Drivers from 2021 to present. (2) Contact information for class members within ten days. (3) Notice distribution via mail and email within seven days. (4) Electronic consent execution for the class members via DocuSign. (5) Dual notice distribution with follow-up reminders after 7 days for the first time and 30 days for the second time. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs' Motion fails to clearly identify the class of persons for FLSA collective action notice. They contended the request to certify "Fevid Drivers performing driving services from 2021 to present" was nonsensical since the Motion defines "Fevid Drivers" as only the named Plaintiffs. Defendants argued the proposed Rule 23 class definition is ambiguous because it is unclear what "hauled loads in New Mexico" means. They stated that although they track starting and ending points for compensable trips, they do not maintain records identifying the state where each driver was located during each trip moment, making class member identification potentially impossible. Defendants also argued the class definition constitutes an objectionable "fail safe" class because determining membership turns on individual claims' merits. Additionally, Defendants contended each proposed class member is subject to the FLSA's "Motor Carrier Exemption" and that Plaintiffs failed to establish similarly situated drivers exist. Court's Analysis and Findings The court applied the Fair Labor Standards Act standard that collective actions allow similarly situated employees to vindicate rights through pooled resources and efficient resolution of common legal issues. Under the Tenth Circuit's ad hoc approach, courts make initial "notice stage" determinations of whether plaintiffs are "similarly situated" without deciding claims' merits. The court found the proposed definition does not create an impermissible fail-safe collective. Since Defendants do not dispute failing to pay overtime wages but argue drivers are exempt under the Motor Carrier Exemption, the court can determine collective membership without determining liability. A truck driver who worked over 40 hours weekly without overtime pay remains in the class even if exempt from FLSA provisions. The court found Defendants' ambiguity concerns regarding "hauled loads in New Mexico" can be remedied by modifying the collective definition to include only drivers whose compensable trips began and/or ended in New Mexico. The court determined Plaintiffs satisfied their lenient burden of establishing that putative collective members are victims of a single decision, policy or plan. Plaintiffs and prospective members worked as truck drivers hauling sand for the same employers, regularly worked over forty hours weekly, and were never paid overtime because they were improperly classified as exempt employees. The court found notice by U.S. mail and email appropriate given that truck drivers may be away from home for extended periods, and electronic communication is increasingly common. Accordingly, the court ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification is granted consistent with this Order. The court conditionally certified the following collective: * All of Defendants' current and former truck drivers who hauled loads that began and/or ended in New Mexico, worked over 40 hours in at least one week within the 3 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit, and were not paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty 40 hours. * The court reserved ruling on the form and content of the notice and consent forms. The court ordered that within fourteen days of the date of this Order, after conferring, the Parties shall jointly submit stipulated notice and consent forms, or, if they cannot agree, they shall file their competing notice and consent forms for the Court's consideration. * The court further ordered that once the Court approves the notice and consent forms the Court will Order Defendants to provide contact information for prospective collective members. For similar reasons, the court permitted collective members to execute their consent electronically via DocuSign. * In furtherance of the remedial purpose of the FLSA, the court permitted Plaintiffs' counsel (or collective administrator) to distribute one follow-up "reminder" notice to those prospective collective members who have not submitted a consent form within thirty days of delivery of the original notice. * As to the contents of the notice, the court afforded the Parties an opportunity to confer and work together in a good faith attempt to draft notice and consent forms that are acceptable to all Parties, in light of the Court's rulings. The proposed notice shall reflect the modification to the collective definition described in this Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CRJCpN FLO HEALTH: Parties Seek to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, et al., v. FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, FACEBOOK, INC., and FLURRY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint omnibus administrative motion to seal limited portions of class certification and summary judgment briefs: Flo is a period and ovulation tracker. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IoG2vS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Michael P. Canty, Esq. Danielle Izzo, Esq. Jake Bissell-Linsk, Esq. Gloria J. Medina, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com mcanty@labaton.com dizzo@labaton.com dsaldamando@labaton.com jbissell-linsk@labaton.com gmedina@labaton.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Diana J. Zinser, Esq. Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: dzinser@srkattorneys.com jkodroff@srkattorneys.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com - and - Kent Morgan Williams, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 220-2759 E-mail: kent.williams@sirillp.com - and - William Darryl Harris, II, Esq. HARRIS LEGAL ADVISORS LLC 3136 Kingsdale Center, Suite 246 Columbus, OH 43221 Telephone: (614) 504-3350 Facsimile: (614) 340-1940 E-mail: will@harrislegaladvisors.com - and - James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-3835 Telephone: (805) 543-0990 Facsimile: (805) 543-0980 E-mail: wagstaffe@ammcglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth K. McCloskey, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7503 Facsimile: (213) 229-6503 E-mail: EMcCloskey@gibsondunn.com CChorba@gibsondunn.com ABarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Michele D. Johnson, Esq. Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-4834 E-mail: andrew.clubok@lw.com melanie.blunschi@lw.com michele.johnson@lw.com - and - Benedict Y. Hur, Esq. Simona Agnolucci, Esq. Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq. Tiffany Lin, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 858-7400 E-mail: bhur@willkie.com sagnolucci@willkie.com esantacana@willkie.com tlin@willkie.com - and - Benjamin Sadun, Esq. Brenda R. Sharton, Esq. DECHERT LLP US Bank Tower 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, CA Telephone: (213) 808-5700 E-mail: benjamin.sadun@dechert.com brenda.sharton@dechert.com FLORIDA: Donaldson Seeks to Certify Rule23 Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DECARLO KERRY DONALDSON, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE-CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM, in its official capacity; ANN COFFIN, in her individual and official capacity as Director of the Florida Department of Revenue-Child Support Program; et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-22521-MFE (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. Certifying the proposed class under Rule23(b)(2); 2. Appointing him as representative of the class; and 3. Permitting further submissions as to notice, discovery and procedural plan; The Plaintiff, appearing pro se, and pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, moves this Court to certify a class of similarly situated individuals impacted by the same unconstitutional enforcement systems and practices alleged in the Plaintiff's verified complaint. The proposed class is defined as: "All individuals in the United States who, at any time since July 1,2004, have been subjected to child support enforcement under administrative orders issued without judicial review, lawful notice, or paternity adjudication, and who have suffered disability-based discrimination, license suspensions, passport denials, credit injury, or garnishments resulting from such systems." The Defendants include JIM ZINGALE, in his individual and official capacity as former Executive Director of the Florida Department of Revenue; ERIK FRESEN, in his individual and official capacity as former Secretary of the Florida Department of Revenue; PAMELA L. REILLY in her individual and official capacity as Revenue Program Administrator, Child Support Program; NANDEE SEUNARINE, in her individual and official capacity as Deputy Agency Clerk; FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, in its official capacity; TERRANCE G. RHODES, in his individual and official capacity as Executive Director of FLHSMV; RON DESANTIS, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida; ASHLEY MOODY, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Florida; MIAMI-DADE CLERK OF COURTS-TITLE IV-D DIVISION, in its official capacity; JUAN FERNANDEZ-BARQUIN, in his individual and official capacity as Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts; MIAMI-DADE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE-CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT BURFAU, in its official capacity; KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE, in her individual and official capacity as Miami-Dade State Attorney; Etc.(all). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EMCX9h at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Decarlo Kerry Donaldson 2474 NW 64th Street Miami, FL 33147 Telephone: (305) 632-2374 E-mail: Iamdecarlol@gmail.com FLORIDA: Filing of Response to Complaint Extended to June 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARIMA ANDERSON, ANDREW BECKER, SHANNA BROWN, WAYNE NEWELL, REZA KUSANI, STUART REESE, ROBIN REESE, ZACK THOMPSON, and VICTOR KHOURY, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (FDOC) and J. ALEX KELLY, in his official capacity as Florida Secretary of Commerce, Case No. 4:25-cv-00016-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order granting the parties' "joint stipulation to extend deadlines" to the following extent: The deadline to move for class certification is suspended. A later deadline will be set after the court considers the parties’ forthcoming Rule 26(f) report. The Defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint is extended to June 27, 2025. The Plaintiffs' motion for extension is denied as moot. The court will issue an initial scheduling order, which will include a deadline for the parties' Rule 26(f) report, after Defendants respond to the complaint. Florida Department of Commerce is the Governor's chief agency for business recruitment and expansion and economic development. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oJhl6o at no extra charge.[CC] GOOD DAY: Filing for All Motions Extended to July 17 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALI ALI BEY, v. GOOD DAY FARM, Case No. 4:22-cv-01292-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Kristine G. Baker entered an order granting Good Day Farm's motion for extension of time and extending the discovery deadline and the motion deadline set forth in in the Second Amended Final Scheduling Order by two weeks. The discovery deadline is now June 18, 2025, and the deadline for filing all motions, except for class certification and motions in limine, is now July 7, 2025. All other deadlines in the Court's Second Amended Final Scheduling Order remain in full force and effect. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=45TYo5 at no extra charge.[CC] GOTO TECHNOLOGIES: Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debt Cleanse Group Legal Services, LLC v. GoTo Technologies USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-12047 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered an order approving Defendant's stipulation to briefly extend the fact discovery deadline for the limited purpose of completing certain depositions. Fact discovery is extended from May 30 to June 30, 2025, solely for the purpose of any necessary depositions as set out in the stipulation. Significantly, the extension will not affect any of the remaining deadlines in this case, including the July 14 deadline. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury.[CC] GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class Cert Discovery in Cude Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER CUDE, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00475-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey entered a class certification scheduling order as follows: 1. Plaintiffs must serve on defendants (but NOT file with the Court) their motion for class certification within 45 days of this Order. The motion must comply with Local Rule 23.2 (except paragraph (f)), and must be accompanied by all supporting evidence, including expert testimony, if any, and supporting brief. The Court will consider class certification on written submission on Jan. 9, 2026 (the "Submission Date"). The Court may, at its discretion, by separate order set a hearing on class certification. 2. Any motions for leave to join additional parties must be filed within 30 days of the date of this Order. Any motion for leave to amend pleadings under Rule 15(a) must be filed within 60 days of this Order. Any motion for leave to amend pleadings after that date must show good cause pursuant to Rule 16(b). 3. All discovery except regarding class certification is stayed. 4. The parties may by written agreement alter the deadlines and limitations in this paragraph, without the need for court order. No continuance of the Submission Date will be granted due to agreed extensions of these deadlines. GEICO offers a variety of additional insurance such as life, umbrella, travel, overseas, pet, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z2oDCs at no extra charge.[CC] GREIF INC: Class Cert Deposition Discovery Stayed Until August 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN, et al., v. GREIF, INC., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-40089 (D. Mass., Filed Aug. 2, 2022), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order that the motions to dismiss shall be based solely on the four corners of the Ryan II amended complaint. Further, discovery of the Ryan II Defendants and any new deposition discovery of Ryan I defendants shall be stayed the Aug. 6, 2025, when the Ryan II Defendants' replies to Plaintiffs' opposition to any motions to dismiss are due. Non-deposition discovery between the Plaintiffs and Ryan I Defendants should continue on during this time and any new disclosures should be made available to the Ryan II Defendants. Regarding the scope of class certification briefing in Ryan II, the Court finds it premature to limit the scope at this time. The parties are advised to raise the issue again closer to the class certification deadlines. Regarding deadlines, the Court adopts the parties' Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, ECF No. 425, as the operative scheduling order. Finally, the Plaintiffs' motion for a limited protective order, is denied. The Plaintiffs will be afforded the standard protections for sensitive personal medical or identifying information. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability -- Diversity-Personal Injury.[CC] INDEGENE INC: Class Cert Hearing Set for June 30 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND REHAB CORP. v. INDEGENE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10106 (D.N.J., Filed Aug. 6, 2020), the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel entered an order that a hearing on the Plaintiff's motion to certify class will be held on June 30, 2025. Indegene is an Indian company that provides research and commercialization services to biopharmaceutical and healthcare enterprises. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.[CC] IQVIA INC: Fischbein Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD E. FISCHBEIN, M.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-05365-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. IQVIA provides healthcare research services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e1E0mN at no extra charge.[CC] ITHACA COLLEGE: Class Settlement in Akerman Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK AKERMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ITHACA COLLEGE, Case No. 3:23-cv-01565-ECC-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Coombe entered an order: -- preliminarily approving settlement; -- certifying class; -- approving notice; and -- setting date for final approval hearing. The Court further entered an order that: -- Plaintiff is directed to file the revised notice and election form by June 12, 2025. -- Any motion to certify a class, for final approval of class action settlement, and for attorneys' fees and costs shall be filed by Oct. 10, 2025. -- Any motion for attorneys' fees and costs shall be supported by contemporaneous attorney billing records. The Court concludes Plaintiff meets all the requirements for class certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) and conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following class under Rule 23(e): "All students enrolled as undergraduate or graduate students on campus at Ithaca for the Spring 2020 semester who did not withdraw prior to March 23, 2020, for whom any amount of tuition and fees were paid from any source other than a scholarship or grant from Ithaca to Ithaca for the Spring 2020 semester, and whose tuition and fees have not been refunded in their entirety prior to this Settlement." Excluded from the settlement class are (1) students who were registered exclusively for online-only classes at the beginning of the Spring 2020 semester, (2) students who paid no tuition or fees (i.e., students who received more in scholarships or grants from Ithaca than what was charged in tuition and/or mandatory fees), (3) students who left, withdrew, or otherwise had completed their academic studies prior to March 23, 2020, (4) any District Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over this action and members of their families; (5) the Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees; (6) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (7) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons. On Dec. 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this diversity class action against Defendant Ithaca College (Ithaca) alleging breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment related to the lack of in-person and on-campus activities during Spring 2020. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement and certification of the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes. Ithaca is a private institution that was founded in 1892. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wGtmJd at no extra charge.[CC] JBS LIVE: Fact Discovery in Force Due Jan. 23, 2026 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Force v. JBS Live Pork LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03018 (C.D. Ill., ), the Hon. Judge Sue E. Myerscough entered an order setting the following deadlines: -- Initial disclosures due by: June 18, 2025 -- Amendment of the pleadings by: Sept. 26, 2025 -- Joint additional parties by: Sept. 26, 2025 -- Fact discovery related to Jan. 23, 2026 Plaintiff's individual claims and to Plaintiff's motion for class certification completed by: -- The Plaintiff's to identify Dec. 12, 2025 experts and provide Rule 26 expert reports in support of motion for class certification by: -- The Plaintiff's experts to be March 7, 2026 deposed by: -- The Defendant's to identify Jan. 30, 2026 experts and provide Rule 26 expert reports in opposition to motion for class certification by: -- The Defendant's experts to be April 7, 2026 deposed by: -- The Defendant's response due by: April 17, 2026 -- The Plaintiff's reply due by: May 8, 2026. The nature of suit states Other Labor Litigation -- Diversity-(Citizenship).[CC] KAISER FOUNDATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 20, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY M. MADRIGAL, individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries and on behalf of the Kaiser Permanente 401K Retirement Plan, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP; KAISER PERMANENTE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-05191-MRA-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order granting stipulation to extend time to respond to plaintiff's second amended complaint and modify pretrial schedule of putative class action: Schedule of Pretrial Class Action Dates Court Ordered Deadline Final Pretrial Conference: June 28, 2027 Opposition to Motions in Limine Due: June 7, 2027 Motions in Limine Filing Deadline: May 31, 2027 Settlement Conference Deadline: June 16, 2027 Daubert Motion Filing Deadline: Oct. 16, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 17, 2026 HEARING on Motion for Class Certification: April 6, 2026 Replies in Support of Class Certification March 9, 2026 Motion Due: Opposition to Class Certification Motion Due: Feb. 16, 2026 Class Certification Motion Filing Deadline: Jan. 20, 2026 Class-Certification Discovery Cut-Off: Dec. 18, 2025 Kaiser operates as a non-profit health care organization. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wuUGMt at no extra charge.[CC] KNIGHT-SWIFT: Court Certifies Classes & Subclasses in Hobbs ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAVARES HOBBS, RICARDO BELL, and ROBERT SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION HOLDINGS, INC. and SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01421-JLR-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order adopting the report and recommendation (R&R) as follows: The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Proposed Classes and Subclasses, and will further certify the HVL Subclass for Class A. Finally, the Court will certify HVL Subclasses for Classes B and C subject to a further submission respecting numerosity of those subclasses, as recommended by the R&R. The Plaintiff are appointed class representatives, and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP is appointed Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the Defendants, alleging various violations of the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Plaintiffs filed an initial motion for class certification that was denied without prejudice due to deficiencies in numerosity. Following limited discovery into numerosity, the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification. On April 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the following classes and subclasses: Class A: "All current and former truck drivers who have been employed by the Defendants while being based out of the Walmart Dedicated location in Johnstown, New York and/or the Target Dedicated location in Amsterdam, New York at any time from Feb. 17, 2015 until the date of class notice." Subclass 1: "all members of Class A who have been away from their assigned base for 24 hours or more after being dispatched on a load assignment, and who have logged at least some time as "Sleeper berth" or "Off duty" on DOT driver logs within New York state during such 24- hour period." Class B: "All current and former truck drivers who have been employed by Defendants while being based out of Defendants' Syracuse, New York location, at any time from Feb. 17, 2015 until the date of class notice." Membership in Class B is limited to time logged as "sleeper Berth" or "off duty" in New York State. Subclass 2: "all members of class B who have been away from their assigned base for 24 hours or more after being dispatched on load assignment, and who have logged at least some time as "Sleeper berth" or "Off duty" on DOT driver logs within New York state during such 24- hour period." Class C: "All current and former truck drivers who have been employed by the Defendants while being based out of a work location outside of New York State, but who have made at least one pickup and/or delivery in New York State and logged sleeper berth time in New York State, at any time from Feb. 17, 2015 until the date of class notice. Membership in Class C is limited to time logged as “sleeper berth” or “off duty” in New York state. Subclass 3: "All members of Class C who have been away from their assigned base for 24 hours or more after being dispatched on load assignment, and who have logged at least some time as "Sleeper berth” or "Off duty" on DOT driver logs within New York state during such 24- hour period." The proposed classes exclude drivers "who are paid hourly, typically operating a 'day cab' truck without a sleeper berth, and who return home every night; as well as ‘'slip seat' Drivers who are assigned short routes that allow them to return home every night." The Plaintiff Hobbs was a driver at Swift from approximately May 2019 to March 2020. Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j11isR at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Coppola Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER COPPOLA, GREGORY DAMATO, ERIC KNUTSEN, JOHN LEIMEISTER, WILLIAM LILLEY, ANTHONY PASQUINN, GERARD SIANI, MICHAEL TREANOR, AND JOHN ZOLLNER v. CITY OF NEW YORK and FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-04914 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for the other hours they were required to work as FDNY Battalion Chiefs; and to obtain liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other available relief from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of Defendants who work or have worked for the FDNY in the position of Battalion Chief. This FLSA Collective Action is comprised of all Battalion Chiefs who were employed by Defendants at any time within three years prior to this action's filing date through the disposition of this matter, and who Defendants misclassified as employees who were exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. During the Collective Action Period, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs and other members of the FDNY Collective for all the work they performed, which includes a repeated failure to provide overtime compensation. In addition, the Defendants have repeatedly prevented Plaintiffs and other members of the FDNY Collective from utilizing compensatory time off hours they accrued for working certain overtime-designated shifts, says the suit. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth H. Greenberg, Esq. GREENBERG BURZICHELLI GREENBERG P.C. 3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 1W7 Lake Success, NY 11042 Telephone: (516) 570-4343 Facsimile: (5160 570-4348 E-mail: sgreenberg@gbglawoffice.com - and - Sammy Sugiura, Esq. John F. Ackerman, Esq. MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C. 1620 Eye Street, NW, STE 700 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 783-0010 Facsimile: (202) 7883-6088 E-mail: jackerman@mooneygreen.com ssugiura@mooneygreen.com NUTRASTOP LLC: Faces Carle Suit Over Telemarketing Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- IAN CARLE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. NUTRASTOP LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01505-BAS-MMP (S.D. Cal., June 11, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Between August 31, 2024, and Nov. 2, 2024, Defendant made telephone solicitations to Plaintiffs cellular telephone. The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received the above solicitations. The Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number that received the Defendant's telephone solicitations for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff’s residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff at home. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12-month, (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location). NUTRASTOP LLC is a retailer of dietary products[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Abayomi's Class Certification Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORCAS ABAYOMI, v. OAKLAND COUNTY, Case No. 2:24-cv-13035-DML-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss, denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify class, and dismissing case. Oakland is a principal county of the Detroit metropolitan area, containing the bulk of Detroit's northern suburbs. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u5UJOj at no extra charge.[CC] OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Alich Class Cert Bid Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Sam Alich, v. Opendoor Technologies Incorporated, et al. (re Opendoor Technologies Incorporated Securities Litigation), Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Michael Liburdi entered an order as follows: -- The Parties shall file a joint status report by June 13, 2025. -- If the Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Opendoor is an online company that buys and sells residential real estate. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cKw62W at no extra charge.[CC] PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Rejects North's Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC's motion for summary judgment and denied as moot Todd M. North's motion for class certification in the case captioned as TODD M. NORTH, , v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-20190 (BRM) (JSA) (D.N.J.). The complaint is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, for failure to establish essential elements of the Consumer Fraud Act claim. Plaintiff Todd M. North is a New Jersey citizen who incurred debts on two accounts: a line of credit obtained from WebBank/FingerHut and a Capital One credit card account. Plaintiff alleges that Portfolio Recovery Associates' repeated attempts to collect these debts violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, Section 56:8-1, et seq. Portfolio Recovery Associates is registered as a limited liability company in Virginia that purchases and takes assignment of defaulted credit accounts originally extended by other creditors, which it then enforces against borrowers through collection letters, lawsuits, and post-judgment collection efforts. Plaintiff alleges that Portfolio Recovery Associates lacked appropriate licenses under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (NJCFLA) when it acquired and engaged in collection efforts regarding the WebBank and Capital One Accounts in violation of CFA. The primary basis for Plaintiff's allegation is that Portfolio Recovery Associates commenced collection activities when it was not properly licensed to do so under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act or any other New Jersey consumer lending statute. Plaintiff alleges that Portfolio Recovery Associates' unlicensed collection activities constitute unlawful conduct under the Consumer Fraud Act. On behalf of a putative class, Plaintiff alleged one cause of action for violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff sought damages and other relief for the alleged violations. Characterizing the complaint as failing to establish essential elements, Defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. arguing that Portfolio Recovery Associates argued that the undisputed facts show North cannot satisfy the three elements of the Consumer Fraud Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates contended that it did not engage in the sale of merchandise or commit unlawful conduct in connection with such a sale as required by the statute. The Defendant emphasized that a collection agency that purchases debt after a debtor was already in default cannot, as a matter of law, be engaged in activities in connection with the sale of merchandise or services, because the sale necessarily occurred before the debt on it was incurred. In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court applies the standard that summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant argued that North cannot show an ascertainable loss because he only paid a debt he actually owed. Portfolio Recovery Associates asserted it has no liability under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act because, as a debt buyer that does not provide loans or extend credit, it is not a consumer lender and is not required to be licensed as such. The Court found that North's attempt to connect Portfolio Recovery Associates' purported lack of licensure under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act to the unlawful conduct element of a Consumer Fraud Act claim is unavailing. The Court noted that courts in this District have roundly rejected efforts to read a private right of action into the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act(NJCFLA). The Court concluded that even assuming North makes a Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) claim independent of his attempt to incorporate the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act, he failed to present sufficient evidence he experienced an ascertainable loss under the Consumer Fraud Act. North does not dispute his debts on the WebBank or Capital One Accounts and admits to having paid off the balances on both accounts to Portfolio Recovery Associates. Therefore, North's tacit admission of debts he incurred and later repaid shows he suffered no out-of-pocket loss, much less any sort of loss in value. According to the Court, North cannot show an ascertainable loss under any theory of loss as required to pursue a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act. The Court explained that summary judgment is warranted if the nonmovant fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to its case. Because North failed to establish an ascertainable loss which is an essential element of North's Consumer Fraud Act claim, Portfolio Recovery Associates' motion for summary judgment is granted. As North's Consumer Fraud Act claim was the sole cause of action in the operative Amended Complaint, judgment in favor of Portfolio Recovery Associates is granted in its entirety. Having granted Portfolio Recovery Associates' Motion for Summary Judgment, which disposed of North's sole remaining claim, the Court found that North's Motion for Class Certification became moot. Given that Portfolio Recovery Associates' Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and the Amended Complaint was dismissed, the Court was left without a live controversy for which to consider certifying a class. Therefore, North's Motion for Class Certification is denied as moot. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1OJnEJ PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 27, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BURRESS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE PREMIER INSRUANCE, COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00062-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an order that: 1. The pleadings shall be amended and new parties shall be joined on or before July 21, 2025. 2. Non-expert discovery shall be completed by Dec. 3, 2025. 3. Expert discovery shall be completed as follows: Report(s) for party bearing Jan. 5, 2026 the burden of proof: Responsive report(s): Feb. 19, 2026 Expert discovery deadline: Mar. 20, 2026 4. The deadline for a motion for class certification is March 27, 2026. 5. The dispositive motion deadline is May 27, 2026. Responses to dispositive motions must be filed within thirty (30) days of service of the dispositive motion. Replies must be filed within 14 days of the service of the response. No surreply brief may be filed without leave from the Court. Progressive operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dg9z3d at no extra charge.[CC] RANCHO MESQUITE: Private Mediation Rescheduled to Sept. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Houghton v. Rancho Mesquite Casino, Inc. (re: Eureka Casino Breach Litigation), Case No. 2:23-cv-00276-CDS-NJK (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order extending stay pending rescheduled mediation: Due to a scheduling conflict, the Parties have rescheduled the private mediation in this action for September 19, 2025. To allow the Parties time to prepare for and conduct the rescheduled mediation while conserving time and financial resources, the Parties stipulate and agree that the stay in this Action should be extended through and including September 19, 2025. This stipulation is entered in good faith, is reasonably necessary, and is not sought for the purposes of delay. 13. The Parties intend to file a joint status report by no later than October 3, 2025, two weeks after the rescheduled mediation. On April 7, 2023, the Parties filed their Joint Motion to Consolidate all related data breach actions filed against Defendant in this court. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=thqcOM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: David E. Chavez, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 900 Las Vegas, NV 89135 E-mail: chavezd@ballardspahr.com - and - Edward J. McAndrew, Esq. Marcus McCutcheon, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 E-mail: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com mmccutcheon@bakerlaw.com RENT THE RUNWAY: Continues to Defend Sharma Shareholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rent the Runway Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sharma stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On November 14, 2022, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO, entitled Rajat Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc., et al. 22-cv-6935 (the "Securities Action"). The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by making allegedly materially misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading concerning, inter alia, the Company's growth at the time of the IPO. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, an award of attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief as deemed just and proper by the court. On June 8, 2023, the court appointed Delaware Public Employees’ Retirement System and Denver Employees Retirement Plan as lead plaintiffs. On August 21, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO. The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act by allegedly making certain false and misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading, concerning, among other things, the Company's growth prospects and fulfillment costs at the time of the IPO. The lawsuit seeks an award of damages, attorney's fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. All defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, with the motion fully briefed as of February 23, 2024. On September 25, 2024, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the claims based on the Company's growth prospects statements but allowing certain other claims to proceed. On October 9, 2024, defendants moved for reconsideration of the September 25, 2024 order and/or for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which motion was fully submitted as of October 30, 2024. In response to an application filed by defendants on November 19, 2024, on November 20, 2024, the Court issued an order adjourning defendants’ deadline to file an answer to the amended complaint sine die. On May 16, 2025, the Court issued an order granting Defendants' motion to extend the time to answer the amended complaint until after the motion for reconsideration is resolved. The Court also determined that a phased approach to discovery was appropriate so as to permit the exchange of "key documents" and to promote the preservation of documents and evidence and directed the parties to submit a proposed initial discovery plan, which they did. The Court approved the initial discovery plan on June 3, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the amended complaint and any liability for such claims is not currently probable and the potential loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. Rent the Runway, Inc. is a shared designer closet with thousands of styles by hundreds of brand partners that gives customers access to its "unlimited closet" through its subscription offering or the ability to rent a-la-carte through its reserve offering. The company's corporate headquarters is located in Brooklyn, New York and its operational facilities are located in Secaucus, New Jersey, and Arlington, Texas. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CA: Initial Standing Order Entered in Sable ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABLE OFFSHORE CORP., et al., v. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04165-DMG-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered an initial standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 5-3.1. Any defendant not timely served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) shall be dismissed from the action without prejudice. The parties may consent to have a Magistrate Judge preside over all proceedings, including trial. The Magistrate Judges who accept those designations are identified on the Central District’s website, which also contains the consent form. Discovery Matters Referred to Magistrate Judge All discovery matters have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. The Magistrate Judge’s initials follow the District Judge’s initials next to the case number. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. This Court hears motions on Fridays, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Motions for Class Certification The deadline for the filing of a motion for class certification will be set pursuant to the parties' stipulation, during the Scheduling Conference, or in a Scheduling Order. Santa Barbara is located approximately 100 miles north of Los Angeles and 300 miles south of San Francisco. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cGCO9j at no extra charge.[CC] SEADRILL LTD: Appeal of $48MM Judgment in SFL Rig Lawsuit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Seadrill Ltd.'s appeal from a judgment in the lawsuit filed by SFL Hercules Ltd. remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2025. On March 5, 2023, Seadrill was served with a claim from SFL Hercules Ltd., filed in the Oslo District Court in Norway, relating to its redelivery of the rig West Hercules to SFL Corporation Ltd. ("SFL") in December 2022. On February 6, 2025, the Oslo District Court delivered a judgment in favor of SFL Hercules Ltd. ordering Seadrill to pay SFL approximately $37 million plus interest and legal costs of approximately $11 million. Seadrill intends to vigorously contest the judgment and filed an appeal on March 5, 2025. Incorporated in Bermuda, Seadrill Limited is an offshore drilling contractor providing worldwide offshore drilling services to the oil and gas industry. Its primary business is the ownership and operation of drillships and semi-submersible rigs for operations in shallow to ultra-deepwater areas in both benign and harsh environments. Its customers include oil super-majors, state-owned national oil companies and independent oil and gas companies. It also provides management services to certain affiliated entities. SECURIX LLC: Divine Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY DIVINE, KARL MERCHANT, and COLUMBUS JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SECURIX, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00196-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the class, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. The Defendant concocted an unlawful scheme ("Diversion Program") to extort money from motorists by issuing "tickets" for allegedly operating a motor vehicle without proper insurance. The Since its inception, the Diversion Program has issued thousands of tickets and collected millions of dollars from Plaintiffs and class members. The Defendant's common course of conduct makes this case amenable to treatment as a class action. The putative class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3). Securix delivers holistic IT security solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZgRoM2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian K. Herrington, Esq. Rogen K. Chhabra, Esq. CHHABRA GIBBS & HERRINGTON PLLC 120 N. Congress St., Ste. 200 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 326-0820 Facsimile: 601-948-8010 E-mail: bherrington@nationalclasslawyers.com rchhabra@nationalclasslawyers.com - and - John G. (Trae) Sims, III, Esq. SIMS LAW FIRM, PLLC 745 HWY 51 - Suite D Madison, MS 39110 Telephone: (601) 207-3732 E-mail: trae@thesimslawfirm.com SELECT MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Briscoe Says ----------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD BRISCOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SELECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION and NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC. (NRS), Case No. 1:25-cv-01057-JFS (M.D. Pa., June 11, 2025) alleges that the NRS failed to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and private health information of the Plaintiff and Class Members. The suit arises after an unauthorized third party gained access to NRS's network systems and accessed and copied files containing PII/PHI of Select's patients between July 5, 2024 and July 11, 2024. Select Medical is a healthcare services provider. NRS is Select's third-party vendor and provides services such as customer service, collections and loss mitigation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Jonathan Shub, Esq. Samantha Holbrook, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOP LLP 200 Barr Harbor Dr., Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: jsub@shublawyers.com bjohns@shublawyers.com shobrook@shublawyers.com SHOE SHOW: Fails to Pay Store Managers' OT Wages, Harris Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN HARRIS and MARTICILLA ROBERTS, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHOE SHOW, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00398 (W.D.N.C., June 11, 2025) seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay Defendant's non-exempt, hourly-paid, and overtime-eligible Store Managers who worked for the Defendant in the United States, including Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees, for all of their overtime hours worked, based upon Defendant's unlawful policies and practices. These Store Managers, including the Plaintiffs, worked in retail stores for Defendant. While Defendant required Store Managers to work overtime hours, they did not pay them for all overtime hours worked including but not limited to time spent working outside of Defendant’s stores communicating with supervisors and co-workers about work matters. The Defendant does not have a timekeeping system for Store Managers to use while performing such work outside of stores like, for example, a telephone application for their cell phones or another method to clock in and out to account for work performed outside of the stores, the suit asserts. The Plaintiffs typically worked 40 or more hours per week. The Defendant operates approximately 1,100 retail stores throughout the United States, including in North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33601 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz. Esq. Marilyn Linares, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Train, Suite 200 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com mlinares@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com SIDEPRIZE LLC: Faces Franks Suit Over Illegal Gambling Websites --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN FRANKS, JACK BACIGALUPI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SIDEPRIZE LLC d/b/a PRIZEPICKS, AND DOES 1-20, Case No. 3:25-cv-04916 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2025) alleges that PrizePicks has been operating mobile gambling applications and websites within California (the "Gambling Websites"), representing to customers and the public that its daily fantasy sports contests, such as "Pick 'Em," are legal forms of gambling in California, but they are not. Plaintiffs Justin Franks and Jack Bacigalupi, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class of similarly situated Californians, bring this lawsuit to stop the unlawful gambling that occurs on PrizePicks' Gambling Websites in California and to recover the money that PrizePicks has unlawfully taken from them. PrizePicks has been operating in California for years through the Gambling Websites, which consist of at least the PrizePicks mobile apps for Android and IOS and the PrizePicks website, PrizePicks.com, and associated subpages. The primary gambling product that PrizePicks currently offers in California is "Pick 'Em," which PrizePicks describes as a form of daily fantasy sports, even though the contests are played entirely against the "house" (i.e., PrizePicks) and not against other users of the Gambling Websites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3550 Watt Ave, Suite 140 Sacramento, CA 95821 Telephone: (530) 490-3178 E-mail: wes@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Christopher Nienhaus, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 E-mail: chris@almeidalawgroup.com SMITH'S FOOD: Stolarski Suit Seeks Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bobbi Stolarski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc., D/B/A Fry's Food And Drug, Case No. 2:25-cv-00241-DGC (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and approving the proposed notice & consent form and opt-in procedures. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has exceeded her burden to provide "substantial allegations" that the Defendant's e-commerce supervisors are similarly situated such that notice should issue. The consistent testimony and evidence show that the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members are similarly situated in that all were salary-paid employees; performed similar job duties; worked more than 40 hours per week at various times during their employment; and were subject to the Defendant's uniform policy of classifying e-commerce supervisors as "exempt" from overtime compensation which resulted in Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members not receiving all overtime compensation due to them at one and one-half time their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 during one or more workweeks. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on Jan. 27, 2025, on behalf of herself and similarly situated e-commerce supervisors, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). (the similarly situated e-commerce supervisors are hereinafter referred to as "Putative Collective Members"). The Plaintiff thereafter filed an Amended Collective Action Complaint on March 12, 2025, which is the operative Complaint in this matter. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay her and the Putative Collective Members complete and proper overtime compensation as a result of misclassifying e-commerce supervisors as exempt from overtime compensation. Smith's Food is a company classified as a grocery chain which operates approximately 129 grocery stores in the state of Arizona. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=879JWf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Jones, Esq. C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN ARIZONA LLC 2355 East Camelback Road, Suite 335 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 627-2322 Facsimile: (602) 627-2213 E-mail: steven.jones@forthepeople.com RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Marilyn Linares, Esq. Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com mlinares@shavitzlaw.com mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: C. Christine Burns, Esq. Katherine Calhoun Bartholomy, Esq. BURNSBARTON PLC 2201 E. Camelback Rd No. 360 Phoenix, AZ 85016 STAPLES CONTRACT: Felix Seeks to File Confidential Info Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER FELIX, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-01968-KK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his application to file under seal confidential information submitted with the plaintiff's motion for class certification: 1. Redacted portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification that includes corporate information designated "Confidential" by Defendant and analysis by the Plaintiff's experts designated "Confidential" by the Plaintiff; 2. Corporate documents regarding the Defendant's employment policies, practices, and procedures, designated "Confidential" by the Defendant; and 3. Redacted expert declarations by Brian Kriegler, Ph.D. and Jeffrey S. Petersen, Ph.D., which include data designated "Confidential" by the Defendant and analysis designated "Confidential" by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed a public version of these items, redacting the confidential portions. Under the terms of the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, entered by the Hon. Sheri Pym on December 20, 2024, documents designated "Confidential" are to be filed in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. The Plaintiff submits the documents listed above for filing under seal, pursuant to the Protective Order, because they contain information that Defendant has designated "Confidential". The Plaintiff decided to cite Exhibits D-K to the Declaration of Melissa Grant in support of Plaintiff's motion for class certification on the day Plaintiff's motion was due, and thus was unable to confer with Defendant in an attempt to eliminate or minimize the need for filing under seal by means of redaction. Declaration of Bevin Allen Pike. Similarly, Exhibits L-M are expert declarations that were not completed until the day the motion was due. The Plaintiff will confer with Defendant and withdraw the Application if a resolution with Defendant can be reached. Staples manufactures industrial machinery. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JQXGDO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Shealene P. Mancuso, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com Shealene.Mancuso@capstonelawyers.com - and - Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com STAPLES CONTRACT: Felix Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER FELIX, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-01968-KK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying this case as a class action against the Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that this Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): 1. Certify the following two classes and two subclasses: A) Rounding Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for The Defendant in California at any time between Oct. 4, 2022 and May 4, 2024, and were paid based on the Defendant's policy and practice of rounding shift-start and -end times." B) Meal Premium Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for The Defendant in California at any time between Oct. 4, 2022 and the date of the order granting class Certification and who worked at least one shift of six hours or more." C) Derivative Waiting Time Subclass: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California at any time between Oct. 4, 2022 and the date of the order granting class certification and whose employment by the Defendant has since ended." D) Derivative Wage Statement Subclass: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California and received at least one wage statement at any time between July 29, 2023 and the date of the order granting class certification." 2. Appoint Plaintiff Javier Felix as representative for the Proposed Classes and Subclasses; and 3. Appoint Capstone Law APC and the Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich as Class Counsel for the proposed Classes and Subclasses. Staples manufactures industrial machinery. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hr9w93 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Shealene P. Mancuso, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com Shealene.Mancuso@capstonelawyers.com - and - Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com STAPLES CONTRACT: Felix Suit Seeks to Certify Classes, Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER FELIX, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-01968-KK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying this case as a class action against the Defendant. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests that this Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): 1. Certify the following two classes and two subclasses: A) Rounding Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California at any time between Oct. 4, 2022 and May 4, 2024, and were paid based on the Defendant's policy and practice of rounding shift-start and -end times." B) Meal Premium Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California at any time between Oct. 4, 2022 and the date of the order granting class certification and who worked at least one shift of six hours or more." C) Derivative Waiting Time Subclass: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California at any time between Oct. 4, 2022 and the date of the order granting class certification and whose employment by the Defendant has since ended." D) Derivative Wage Statement Subclass: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California and received at least one wage statement at any time between July 29, 2023 and the date of the order granting class certification." 2. Appoint the Plaintiff Javier Felix as representative for the Proposed Classes and Subclasses; and 3. Appoint Capstone Law APC and the Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich as Class Counsel for the proposed Classes and Subclasses. Staples manufactures industrial machinery. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TfB7Jf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Shealene P. Mancuso, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com Shealene.Mancuso@capstonelawyers.com - and - Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com STRATFORD UNIVERSITY: $193K awarded to Class Counsel in Rodriguez ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. STRATFORD UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01048-MSN-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nachmanoff entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and attorneys fees, costs. and service award: Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, this Action as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class defined as: "All U.S. residents who were sent a direct notice of the Data Incidents by Stratford University, Inc., in Jan. 2023." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) the Defendant and its former officers and directors; (b) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (c) the presiding judges, and their staff and family; (c) the Trustee; and (d) any other person found by a court of competent Jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initialing, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incidents or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. The Plaintiff Ana Rodriguez is appointed, for settlement purposes only, representative for the Settlement Class for purposes of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court confirms the appointment of Nicholas A. Migliaccio and Jason S. Rathod ofMigliaccio & Ralhod l.LP. and Matthew T. Sutter of Sutter & Terpak, PLLC as Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to Rules 23(c)(1)(B) and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $193,333.33, inclusive of any costs and expenses of the Action, and such amounts shall be paid by the Claims Administrator pursuant to and consistent with the terms of the Settlement. Stratford offers Associate, Bachelor's and Master's Degrees, as well as many non-credit workshops and courses. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=glLC5g at no extra charge.[CC] SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Fite Must File Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fite v. Sysco Sacramento, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01633 (E.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 10, 2021), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order that the Plaintiffs must file their motion for class certification within 30 days after the Court's ruling on Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation -- Diversity-(Citizenship). Sysco provides food services.[CC] TRANS UNION: Jackson Bid to Seal Class Cert Memo Granted -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONNIE L. JACKSON, v. TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01069-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge David Keesler entered an order granting the Plaintiff's "Motion to Seal". The unredacted version of "Plaintiff's Memorandum In Support Of Her Motion for Class Certification Of Claims Against the Defendant Trans Union, LLC" and Exhibits 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 thereto, shall remain under seal until otherwise ordered by the Court. The Plaintiff seeks to file "the unredacted version of her Memorandum in Support of the Certification Motion and exhibits to that Memorandum under seal because the Defendant has designated the documents and information confidential under the Protective Order or Plaintiff expects Defendant to do so." The undersigned observes that Plaintiff has already filed a redacted version of "Plaintiff's Memorandum In Support Of Her Motion For Class Certification Of Claims Against Defendant Trans Union, LLC." The Plaintiff's motion fails to satisfy the Court's requirement of consultation. Moreover, Defendant has failed to file a response. See LCvR 7.1(e). TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JBrD5z at no extra charge.[CC] TRANS UNION: Seeks to File Class Cert Response Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONNIE L. JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01069-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order sealing certain portions of TransUnion's response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11 to the Opposition. TransUnion seeks to redact limited portions of its Opposition that include (1) personal identifying information and (2) statement, quotes, or material from Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11. In addition to the limited portions in the Opposition, the Plaintiff seeks to seal certain Exhibits. As described in detail, TransUnion seeks to seal documents that contain personal identifying information; were designated "CONFIDENTIAL -- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" in discovery; and are related to TransUnion's confidential policies and procedures and internal confidential business practice. The Exhibits contain TransUnion's internal policies and procedures and business practices that could harm TransUnion's business interests. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8KszFQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Gwendolyn W. Lewis, Esq. Samantha L. Southall, Esq. Patrick D. Doran, Esq. Sydney Rochelle Harville, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 227 West Trade Street, Suite 600 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 444-3364 Facsimile: (704) 444-3490 E-mail: gwendolyn.lewis@bipc.com samantha.southall@bipc.com patrick.doran@bipc.com sydney.harville@bipc.com TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Court Certifies Classes & Subclasses in BOAGF ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOAGF Holdco LP v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge C.J. Williams entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification. The following classes and subclasses are certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: "Past Losses Class: All owners of TransAdvantage, TransSavers, TransUltra 2K, TransUltra 1997, TransUltra LP, TransUltra LP 2005, TransValue, and TransValue 2002 issued or insured by Transamerica Life Insurance Company, or its predecessors, subjected to the monthly deduction rate and COI rate increases first announced in or after 2021." Conversion Subclass: "All members of the Past Losses Class, excluding owners of TransValue, TransUltra LP, and TransUltra LP 2005." Uniformity Class: "All owners of CR UL policies issued or insured by Transamerica Life Insurance Company, or its predecessors, subjected to the monthly deduction rate and COI rate increases first announced in or after 2021, excluding owners of Bond Continuation, ISL Security Plus, Life Security, Premier Life, Security Plus II, Security Plus ISWL, Triple Protector, Ultima Simplified Protector, and Youth Protector." Mortality Factor Subclass: "All members of the Uniformity Class that own Agri-VIP, Bankers Universal Life, Horizon 2, HUB, HUB PA, Pacific Fidelity UL, Preferred Gold II, Preferred UL, Summit UL, Uni- VIP HUB, and Single Premium (plan codes UL1020, UL1021, UL1022, UL1A28, UL1036, and UL1037)." Excluded from each of the foregoing Classes and Subclasses are Defendant Transamerica Life Insurance Company, its officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and their heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing; anyone employed with Plaintiffs' counsel's firms; any Judge to whom this case is assigned, and his or her immediate family; and any owners of policies issued in any foreign country, United States Territory, the Armed Forces, Alaska, New Mexico, and South Carolina. The parties are directed to meet and confer within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order to submit a joint proposed procedure for providing notice of the Class Action. The Court appoints BlackOak Life Limited as class representative for the Past Losses Class and Conversion Subclass; PHT Holding II LP and Lawrence Handorf as class representatives for the Uniformity Class; and PHT Holding II LP as class representative for the Mortality Factor Subclass. The Court appoints Susman Godfrey LLP as class counsel. The case involves monthly deduction rate ("MDR") and cost of insurance ("COI") rate increases on universal life ("UL") insurance policies. Plaintiffs assert one claim for breach of contract, arguing under various theories that the way defendant raised rates in 2022 and 2023 violated the terms of insurance policies. The Plaintiffs collectively own five life insurance policies issued by the defendant. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AAHg26 at no extra charge.[CC] UNILEVER UNITED: Bid to Dismiss Timmins Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LACEY TIMMINS, v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-03017-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Defendant is ordered to answer the complaint within 14 days of this Order. Because the Court holds that the Plaintiff's claims satisfy the reasonable consumer standard, the Court denies the Defendant's motion as to the Plaintiff's UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims. The Plaintiff purchased baby petroleum jelly advertised as hypoallergenic. She later learned the jelly contained fragrance, which she alleges is a known allergen. The Plaintiff brought state law claims against the Defendant for false advertisement, misrepresentation, and violation of warranty. Defendant moves to dismiss all claims, arguing that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient. In 2023, Lacey Timmins purchased Unilever United States Inc.'s Vaseline brand Baby Healing Jelly to alleviate her son's eczema and diaper rash. Unilever manufactures personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aG8GlI at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES LOGAN, SR. v. UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Case No. 4:25-cv-00238-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend time for filing motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for class certification is extended until after the Court disposes of the motion to dismiss and after any amended complaint is filed (and, if applicable, after disposition of any dispositive motions brought against an amended complaint). Railroad Retirement Board administers retirement, survivor, unemployment, and sickness benefits for U.S. railroad workers and their families. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lwhr3m at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Gutierrez Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAMIL LUNA GUTIERREZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01766-CJN (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2), appointing the Individual Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appointing the undersigned as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following nationwide class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2): "All immigration detainees originally apprehended and detained in the United States, and who are, or will be held at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The proposed class readily satisfies the requirements of Rule 23." The Plaintiffs file this class action to challenge the Defendants' detention of civil immigration detainees at Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This detention policy violates the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), has been carried out in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious, and the purpose of detention and conditions endured by detainees at Guantanamo are punitive and violate their constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. The Plaintiffs' counsel have already devoted substantial time investigating the factual and legal issues in this case and will continue to do so throughout the pendency of the litigation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YMwb8d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eunice H. Cho, Esq. My Khanh Ngo, Esq. Kyle Virgien, Esq. Lee Gelernt, Esq. Brett Max Kaufman, Esq. Judy Rabinovitz, Esq. Noor Zafar, Esq. Omar C. Jadwat, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street, NW, 7th floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 546-6616 E-mail: echo@aclu.org mngo@aclu.org kvirgien@aclu.org - and - Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 722 Washington, DC 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: aspitzer@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org lgelernt@aclu.org bkaufman@aclu.org jrabinovitz@aclu.org nzafar@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org - and - Deepa Alagesan, Esq. Kimberly Grano, Esq. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT One Battery Park Plaza, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (516) 838-7044 E-mail: dalagesan@refugeerights.org kgrano@refugeerights.org - and - Baher Azmy, Esq. Shayana D. Kadidal, Esq. J. Wells Dixon, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, Floor 7 New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 614-6427 E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org shanek@ccrjustice.org wdixon@ccrjustice.org UNITED STATES: Logan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES LOGAN, SR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Case No. 4:25-cv-00238-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for filing a motion for class certification until after the Court disposes of the motion to dismiss and after any amended complaint is filed (and, if applicable, after disposition of any dispositive motions brought against an amended complaint). In the interests of efficiency and practicality, Plaintiff requests that the deadline to file for class certification be extended until after the Court disposes of the motion to dismiss and after any amended complaint is filed (and, if applicable, after disposition of any dispositive motions brought against an amended complaint). The requested extension is sought in good faith and will not prejudice any case deadlines. On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff's counsel conferred with Defendant’s counsel; Defendant has no objection to the requested relief. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), Plaintiff James Logan, Sr. requests an extension of time to file his motion for class certification. In support of this motion, Plaintiff states: On March 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1), asserting claims on behalf of himself and a proposed class of former railroad employees who received Tier II benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on May 30, 2025. The Plaintiff's deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss is June 20, 2025. Railroad administers retirement, survivor, unemployment, and sickness benefits for U.S. railroad workers and their families. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=enO3G7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles S. Siegel, Esq. Leslie C. MacLean, Esq. Taryn E. Ourso, Esq. WATERS KRAUS PAUL & SIEGEL 3141 Hood Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 357-6244 Facsimile: (214) 357-7252 E-mail: siegel@waterskraus.com lmaclean@waterskraus.com tourso@waterskraus.com - and - Brant C. Martin, Esq. Colin P. Benton, Esq. WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP 100 Throckmorton Street, Suite 1500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 332-7788 Facsimile: (817) 332-7789 E-mail: brant.martin@wickphillips.com colin.benton@wickphillips.com - and - Jeffrey D. Lerner, Esq. THE DOVE FIRM 524 E. Lamar Boulevard, Suite 230 Arlington, TX 76011 Telephone: (817) 462-0006 Facsimile: (817) 462-0027 E-mail: jeff.lerner@thedovefirm.com - and - John R. (Scotty) MacLean, III, Esq. MACLEAN LAW FIRM 4916 Camp Bowie Boulevard, Suite 100 Fort Worth, TX 76107 Telephone: (817) 529-1000 Facsimile: (817) 698-9401 E-mail: smaclean@macleanfirm.com UNITED STATES: Seeks Denial of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELICA S. et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01405-DLF (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On May 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed this suit, and the next day, moved for class certification and a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs claim that the IFR violates the APA because: (1) HHS did not publish the IFR through notice and comment and did not have good cause for it to take immediate effect, (2) the IFR exceeds statutory authority because it is contrary to ORR's statutory obligation to promptly place UAC in the least restrictive setting that is in their best interest, (3) the IFR is contrary to the constitutional right to family unity, and (4) the IFR is arbitrary and capricious because it does not explain why it rescinds the prohibition on denying sponsor applications based on immigration status and collecting information on sponsor immigration status. The Individual Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "All unaccompanied children who are or will be in the custody of HHS and who (a) have or had a potential sponsor who has been identified; and (b) have not been released to a sponsor in whole or in part because they are missing documents newly required on or after March 7, 2025." The proposed class, however, is impermissibly overbroad and indefinite and fails to satisfy the commonality, typicality, and cohesiveness required for an injunctive-relief class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) or (b)(2). US Department of Health and Human Services is a cabinet-level executive branch department of the US federal government created to protect the health of the US people and providing essential human services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cc5P3W at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Yaakov M. Roth, Esq. Glenn M. Girdharry, Esq. William C. Silvis, Esq. Christina Parascandola, Esq. Lindsay Vick, Esq. Michael A. Celone, Esq. Joshua C. McCroskey, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION – GENERAL LITIGATION AND APPEALS SECTION Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 514-3097 E-mail: christina.parascandola@usdoj.gov UNITED WATER: Settlement Agreement in Knott Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KNOTT, ET AL., V. UNITED WATER SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00401-DCJ-DJA (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge David Joseph entered an order that the proposed Settlement Agreement is approved. Accordingly, the Court grants the unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court further entered an order that: A. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to be appointed class counsel and for allocation of attorneys' fees and expenses from settlement funds, is granted in part as follows: 1. Gordan J. Schoeffler, Adam R. Credeur, Kenneth W. DeJean, and Natalie M. DeJean are appointed as Class Counsel; 2. Class Counsel shall be paid an attorney fee of 33.3% ($499,500) of the $1,500,000 Settlement Fund; and 3. Class Counsel shall be reimbursed its litigation expenses to date, in the amount of $83,936.33 from the Settlement Fund. B. The action is dismissed with prejudice without costs to any party, except as otherwise provided herein (subject to retention of jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement). C. By entry of this final judgment, Plaintiff and all Settlement Class Members who have not opted out of the Settlement Agreement shall be deemed to have forever released, relinquished, and discharged United Water System, Inc. and the Released Persons from any and all claims covered by the Settlement Agreement. The Court previously granted class certification, for settlement purposes only, of the following Class: "All natural persons who are residential property owners (including members of their household) and lessees of residential property (including members of their household) who at any time between Feb. 16, 2013 and the present are/were United Water System account holders and received their water supply from United Water System, Inc. and, as a result of receiving water from United Water System, Inc. between Feb. 16, 2013 and the present, have any of the following claims: mental and emotional distress; non-reimbursed personal expenses; nuisance, annoyance, discomfort, and inconvenience; civil trespass; fear of bodily injury, fear of contracting disease, fear of increased risk of contracting disease; personal property damage/loss as it relates to clothes and/or linens, diminution in value of clothes and/or linens, out of pocket expenses, including but not limited to expenses for purchasing bottled water/ice, purchase of water/ice dispensers, expenses of installing water filtration systems and related maintenance and filter replacement costs or need for same in the future; loss of use and enjoyment of real property, homes and leased property(ies)." The Settlement Class is amended to remove the four individuals who chose to opt-out of the Class: (i) Elaine Latiolais, (ii) Vicki Sonnier, (iii) Jason Sonnier, and (iv) Ashley Trahan. On Feb. 16, 2023, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a state court petition in the Sixteenth Judicial District for the Parish of St. Martin, alleging an array of damages stemming from United Water System, Inc.’s allegedly deficient water quality. United is involved in design, supply , installation and maintenance of water equipment for residential, commercial & industrial sectors. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7GlC9z at no extra charge.[CC] VODAFONE GROUP: Price Increase Class Suit Hearing Set for Dec. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vodafone Group Public Ltd Co, disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2025, that the Hamm Higher Regional Court scheduled the price increase class suit hearing on December 3, 2025. In November 2023, the Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (Federation of German Consumer Organisations) initiated a class action against Vodafone Germany in the Hamm Higher Regional Court. Vodafone Germany implemented price increases of 5 euros per month for fixed lines services in 2023 in response to higher costs. The claim alleges that terms regarding price increases in the consumer contracts entered into by Vodafone Germany's customers up until August 2023 are invalid under German civil law and seeks reimbursement of the additional charges plus interest. Customers must enter their details onto the register of collective actions on the Federal Office of Justice website in order to participate in the claim. The register opened in April 2024 and as at 31 March 2025, approximately 99,200 customers had registered. Vodafone Germany filed its defence in August 2024 and a hearing will take place on December 3 2025. Vodafone Group Plc -- http://www.vodafone.com-- is engaged in providing service, such as voice, messaging, data and fixed line and others. Voice services include provision of mobile voice communications. Messaging include text, picture and video messaging on mobile devices. Date services provide e-mail, mobile connectivity and Internet on mobile. Fixed broadband offerings include communications services for both consumers. The company offers a range of devices to access its services, such as handsets, the Vodafone Mobile Connect card with third generation broadband and the Vodafone Mobile Connect USB modem. WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Bowles Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA BOWLES, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, Case No. 2:23-cv-10973-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Linda V. Parker entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's motion to amend. The Court is dismissing without prejudice Bowles' state-law inverse condemnation claim, only. Her section 1983 takings claim survives the motion. The Court is granting in part and denying in part Bowles' motion to file an amended complaint. She may amend her pleading to add a section 1983 takings claim brought by herself, Myers, Sutton, and Johnson on behalf of a putative class of former property owners whose Wayne County properties were foreclosed and sold at a tax auction sale before the amendments to the GPTA took effect. She may not include in the amended pleading claims on behalf of former Wayne County property owners whose properties were foreclosed after the effective date of the amendments. The amended pleading shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of this decision. s The Court concludes that section 78t does not preempt section 1983 takings claims brought on behalf of former Michigan property owners whose property was sold at a tax auction sale before the State legislature amended the GPTA to include a mechanism for recouping any surplus proceeds. Section 78t is the exclusive mechanism under state law, however. Thus, Bowles’ state-law inverse condemnation claim must be dismissed without prejudice, and it would be futile for any amended pleading to include such a claim at this time. Bowles and Taylor filed a motion for class certification, which was granted on January 14, 2022. In that decision, the Court certified the following class: All property owners formerly owning property from within the counties of Wayne and Oakland who had said property seized by Defendants via the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.78 et seq., which was worth more and/or was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and was not refunded the excess/surplus equity, and this sale occurred before July 17, 2020, but within three years of the filing of this lawsuit [i.e. October 22, 2017], and excluding any property owner who has filed their own post-forfeiture civil lawsuit to obtain such relief." On Oct. 22, 2020, Tonya Bowles filed this putative class action lawsuit against Wayne County asserting claims arising from the foreclosure and sale of her property due to a tax delinquency. Bowles alleges that Wayne County sold the property at a sheriff's sale for more than the tax delinquency but failed to return to her the surplus proceeds. Wayne is situated in the heart of the Great Lakes region along the beautiful Detroit River. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0bDAKE at no extra charge.[CC] WESTECH SECURITY: Court Certifies Carrasquillo Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA CARRASQUILLO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. WESTECH SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04931-MKV-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order adopting report and recommendation as follows: -- The Plaintiff's motion for collective action certification is granted as to all similarly situated security guards employed by the Defendant in New York State on or after Oct. 18, 2021. -- The Motion is denied with respect to the Plaintiff's request to include in the potential collective patrol drivers and site supervisors. -- The Plaintiff's proposed notice is approved as modified by the Report and Recommendation, and that distribution of the forthcoming amended proposed notice by mail, e-mail, and text message is authorized. The Plaintiff brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") against the Defendant. Westech provides expert security risk and threat consulting services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pOczCX at no extra charge.[CC] WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Briefing on Class Cert in Costa Due August 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Costa, et al., v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-00188 (D. Del., Filed Feb. 12, 2024), the Hon. Judge Maryellen Noreika entered an order that the briefing on class certification must be completed by Aug. 7, 2026. The parties shall adjust all prior deadlines as they see fit to accomplish this briefing deadline, shall propose dates for events post-class certification at least six (6) months after submission of the class certification briefing and shall file an updated proposed Scheduling Order no later than June 9, 2025. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Whirlpool is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of home appliances headquartered in Benton Charter Township, Michigan.[CC] WHITE CAP: Class Cert Bids in Lobdell Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Lobdell, v. White Cap, LP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-11450-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy G. Edmunds entered an order that the following motion(s) are referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge David R. Grand for a hearing and determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A): -- Motion to Compel – No. 23 -- Motion to Stay − No. 33 -- Motion to Bifurcate − No. 37 -- Motion for Protective Order − No. 39 -- Motion to Quash − No. 41 -- Motion to Quash − No. 44 -- Motion to Quash − No. 45 -- Motion to Quash − No. 56 -- Motion to Quash − No. 57 -- Motion to Quash − No. 59 -- Motion to Compel − No. 61 Motion for Order to Show Cause − No. 62 White Cap is a distributor of specialty construction supplies and safety products for professional contractors. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o94uyX at no extra charge.[CC] WSAF INC: Cortes Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------- ULISES CORTES v. WSAF INC. and IGOR ALTERMAN, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-03261 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees of the Defendants seeking unpaid minimum wage pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff was hired directly by Defendant Igor Alterman, who set his work schedule and consistently gave him daily orders and instructions regarding his duties. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully failed to pay the required wages. The plaintiff was employed primarily as a waiter under the direct supervision and control of the Defendant Alterman. WSAF LLC operates as a private equity firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Filing Amended to Sept. 25, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEMARY LAROCK, v. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05745-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order amending the class action case schedule as follows: Event Date Deadline for filing amended pleadings: July 3, 2025 Close of fact discovery: June 2, 2026 Deadline to disclose merits and class July 2, 2026 certification experts: Deadline to disclose merits and class Aug. 3, 2026 certification rebuttal experts: Close of expert discovery: Aug. 24, 2026 Deadline to file motion for class Sept. 25, 2026 Certification: Deadline to file brief in opposition to class Oct. 26, 2026 Certification: Deadline to file reply in support of class Nov. 16, 2026 Certification: ZoomInfo is an American software and data company which provides data for companies and business individuals. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pLtzag at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***