250623.mbx

250623.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 23, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 124 Headlines ABC FINANCIAL: Marigliano Consumer Suit to Remain in Federal Court ACCEPTANCE NOW: Court Certifies Class in McBurnie, et al. Lawsuit ACCESSIBE INC: Bid to Disqualify Krezalek as Defense Counsel Denied ACV AUCTIONS: Hill EPOA Lawsuit Remanded to State Court AECIQ: Court Grants Motion to Compel in Newman TCPA Lawsuit AIR INDUSTRIES: Molina Suit Removed to C.D. California AISIN MFG: Bell Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ALAN BORJA: Xiong Suit Dismissed with Prejudice ALBION COLLEGE: Knapp Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data ALL-AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Parties in Vaccaro Must Submit Class Cert Updates AMAZON.COM: Bid to Dismiss Medal Suit Tossed AMERICAN VAN LINES: Doria Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ANDY FRAIN SERVICES: Wagner Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ANGEL GARITE: Bid for Summary Judgment in MAPS Suit Granted ANTERO RESOURCES: Expert Discovery Extended to July 30 APPLE COMMUTER: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by July 7 APPLE INC: Hughes Suit Seeks Class Certification ARCHON VITAMIN: Flick Sues Over Product's False Protein Claims ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Bill of Costs in Crawford Suit Granted in Part ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Furman Suit Removed to E.D. California ASCENSION HEALTH: Watkins Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ASFC LLC: Herrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ATHENA BITCOIN: Amended Class Notice Entered in Jackson Suit AUDUBON COMPANIES: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Walker Says B&H HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Denied in Burgos Wage Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Parties Seek Remote Appearance to Class Hearing BARRICK ENTERPRISES: Court to Initially OK Settlement in Stansbury BENEFITS PARTNER: Court Consolidates Four Related Cases BENJAMIN MOORE: Reed Wage Lawsuit Remanded to State Court BLOOMBERG LP: Opposition to Class Cert Bid in Syeed Due June 23 BLOOMBERG LP: Santoro Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid BLUE CORN HARVEST: Solanas Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Texas BROADMARK REALTY: Grant Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements BUCKBEE SEED COMPANY: Brewer Files Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct. BWNVT MOTORS LLC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CANNON COCHRAN: Barbour Suit Removed to N.D. California CARGOMATIC INC: Duenas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CARLA J. SCHWARTZ: Tuulik Suit Transferred to C.D. California CENTER STAGE: Jonas et al. Sue Over Alleged Drip Pricing CENTRAL UNITED PACKAGING: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CENTURY TILE: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CERNER CORPORATION: Melvin Files Suit in W.D. Missouri CHAPEL OF THE ROSES: Milanes Suit Removed to C.D. California COLEMAN CO: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Triesch Sues For Deceptive Toothpaste Labels CONTEMPORARY INFORMATION: Wins Bid to Dismiss Dwyer FCRA Lawsuit EDUCATION CORP: Burdette Sues Over Data Security Failures EDWARD L. CAPLA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Civil Conspiracy Lawsuit EHPLABS LLC: Chavez Sues Over Protein Powder's False Ads EVERYTHING BREAKS: Settlement in Campbell Suit Gets Final Court OK EZ ADVOCATES: Bush Sues Over Labor Law Breaches FAITH CHURCH: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Collective Action FANDANGO MEDIA: Falsely Advertised Tickets' Prices, Zeid Says FAST EASY: Wins Bid to Dismiss Coffey TCPA Lawsuit FORTREA HOLDINGS: July 8 Class Action Notice Deadline Set GENSTONE ENTERPRISES: Cole Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee HANOVER VENTURES: Settlement in Gonzalez Suit Gets Final Court Nod HENKEL CORP: Garcia Consumer Lawsuit Remanded to State Court HOST INT'L: Settlement in Lewis Suit Obtains Final Court Nod JAMES M LEBLANC: Loses Bids to Stay Charles, et al. ADA Lawsuit KANDLELIGHT LLC: Dunbar Sues Over ADA Violation KNOWBE4 INC: Water Island Sues Over Omitted Info in Vista Merger LABORATORY CORP: Judge Kavanaugh Resolves Class Action Question LAMCO HARVEST INC: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LEXON INSURANCE: Settlement in California Bail Bond Litigation OK'd LHC GROUP: Court Extends Time to File Summary Judgment Bid LIBERTY MUTUAL: Must Oppose Watts Class Cert Bid by August 14 LIVE NATION: $20MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 28 LOUD AUDIO: Beven Sues Over Deceitful Business Practice LOUD AUDIO: Shortchanged Value of Express Warranties, Beven Says LOUIE'S RESTAURANT: Aquino Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages LOWE'S HOME: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 15 LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to June 30 LUCERO AG: Motion to Compel Discovery Responses Granted in Part LUXURY BATH OF TAMPA: Miller Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida MANAGED CARE: Crowe Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class MARCO A. RUBIO: Court Narrows Claims in SIV Applicants' Lawsuit MARCO ANTONIO: 6330 Pacific Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MAXEY ENERGY: Court Tosses Gustin Lawsuit Without Prejudice MCKINLEY PACKAGING: Milanes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Substances, Arndt Says MDL 2873: Faces Lambert Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Faces Schryer Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Substances, Hawthorne Says MDL 2873: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Substances, Shall Claims MDL 2873: Hall Files Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Substances MDL 2873: Keeley Sues Over Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Taylor Seeks Damages from Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MEGAMART CA: Perez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation MEYER LOGISTICS: Samano Suit Removed to C.D. California MIDEA AMERICA: Catalano Files Suit in S.D. New York MIDWEST GERIATRIC: Norton Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages MOVE INC: Bid to Seal Class Docs Granted in Faucett Class Suit MOVE INC: Faucett Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Strike Class Action Claims Tossed as Moot NECTAR BRAND: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NESTLE WATERS: Court Junks Cross-Bids for Reconsideration NEW ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alves Suit Alleges NIKITA BAKER: Petitioners-Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification NORLITE LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Amended to Dec. 1 NORTHEAST WORK: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave To File SAC OOMA CANADA: Continues to Defend Chiu Trademarks Class Suit OTP PIZZA: Bonilla and Bonilla Seek Proper Overtime Wages OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Bid to Strike Exhibits in Osborne Suit Tossed P.W. STEPHENS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PA AMERICAN LIFE: Critchlow Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY: Montiel Files Suit in D. Colorado PETROGAS FLORIDA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property PHONE LCD: Bilir Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action PLUTO ACQUISITION: Class Settlement in McDowell Gets Initial Nod POPULUS FINANCIAL: Hanson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PRESTIGE CLAIMS: Heath Sues Over Worker Misclassification PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dean et al. Sue Over Alleged Greenwashing PROCTER & GAMBLE: DuPont Sues Over Deceptive Product Marketing PROCTER & GAMBLE: Giarrizzo and Meuse Sue Over False Advertising PRODRIVERS WEST: Court Dismisses All Claims in Cortes FAC QUALFON DATA: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. QUIKAID INC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia RALLY HOUSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says RAWLINGS COMPANY: Zakarian Suit Seeks Class Certification RECKITT BENCKISER: Elevator Constructors Sues Over Share Price Drop REDDIT INC: Nelson Suit Removed to S.D. California RENT THE RUNWAY: Sharma Securities Suit over IPO Ongoing RICOH USA: Class Certification Filing Extended in MTP Suit ROSELLE MOTORS: Ramirez Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois S-K RANCH MANAGEMENT: Santos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. S.G.V. HEALTHCARE: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAJAHTERA INC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SANTOS PULIDO: 6330 Pacific Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SATELLITE CENTER: Kain Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Louisiana SCREENING REPORTS: Davis Files FCRA Suit in D. Maryland SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 26 SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Roberts Sues Over Defective Pressure Cookers SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Roberts Sues Over Defective Product Design SHENZHEN CHARMAST: Power Banks Pose Fire Hazards, Yim Alleges SILVUS TECHNOLOGIES: Kahenasa Sues Over Pregnancy Discrimination SKILLED MANUFACTURING: Johnson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime SLOY DAHL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Nestler, et al. ERISA Lawsuit SNAP INC: Milito EPOA Lawsuit Remanded to State Court SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Motion to Dismiss Rathbun Case Denied as Moot STACKS ESPRESSO: Bard-Hobbs Sues Over Unlawfully Retained Tips STAR 214: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to June 27 STRATEGIC FUNDING: Greenberg Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls SWEETWOOD FARM: Lainez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TARGET CORPORATION: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California TARGET CORPORATION: Williams Files Suit in D. Minnesota TAX SERVICES: Wins Bid to Compel Tanner Suit to Arbitration TEAM DISCOVERY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jackson Due Sept. 19 TENET HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Doe Suit THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY CHAIN: Copes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TORRID HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Jillson, Carmen Class Suit TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Stein Suit Removed to C.D. California TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UKG INC: Court Narrows Claims in Maxfield, et al. Lawsuit UNIGO LLC: Mosher Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Communications UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Lane Fifth Amendment Suit UNITED STATES: Plaintiff Wins Class Cert Bid UNITED STATES: Unaccompanied Children Class Gets Provisional Cert. VEGAS.COM LLC: Nixon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WARDEN ODUM: Court Tosses Lovelace Prisoner Class Action WAREHOMES 5007: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property WAREHOMES 5007: Pardo Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers WE CARE COMMUNITY: McCowan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WEB TO DOOR CORP: Soberanis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WELLS FARGO BANK: Halquist Suit Removed to N.D. California WEXFORD HEALTH: Confidentiality Designation of Docs Stricken WEXFORD HEALTH: Motion to Seal in Spurlock Suit Held in Abeyance WHITEPAGES INC: Joint Status Report & Discovery Order Entered WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: Patterson Settlement Obtains Final Court Nod WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Suit Seeks Class Certification WRLDINVSN LLC: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines in Murray ZUCKERMAN FAMILY FARMS: Moreno Suit Removed to E.D. California ********* ABC FINANCIAL: Marigliano Consumer Suit to Remain in Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey will deny the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as LIZA MARIGLIANO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. a/k/a ABC FITNESS SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case NO. 24-cv-10403-ZNQ-RLS (D.N.J.) to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County. Defendant ABC Financial Services, Inc. a/k/a ABC Fitness Solutions opposes the motion. This putative class action arises from Plaintiff's allegedly unpaid membership dues to Octagon NB Partners, LLC d/b/a UFC Gym Frankie Edgar. Plaintiff alleges that on Sept. 9, 2017, she signed a "recurring dues membership" contract with UFC Gym in North Brunswick, New Jersey. Plaintiff claims that, in 2023, UFC Gym was still charging her membership dues even though her Membership Agreement had expired and she was no longer using UFC Gym facilities and services. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. 56:8-2, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq., on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals. On Oct. 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a civil action against Defendant in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County. On Nov. 8, 2024, Defendant removed the Complaint to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction. On Nov. 15, 2024, Defendant moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration clause in Plaintiff's membership agreement. On Dec. 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand. On Dec. 23, 2024, Plaintiff, with Defendant's consent, sought the adjournment of the Motion to Compel Arbitration pending the resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Plaintiff argues that the Court should remand this matter because the forum selection clause in her gym membership agreement requires this case to be litigated in New Jersey state court. Defendant does not dispute the validity of the forum selection clause. Instead, Defendant argues that it is not subject to the forum selection clause because it was not a party to the Membership Agreement between Plaintiff and UFC Gym. According to the Court, Plaintiff has provided no evidence regarding the ownership relationship between Defendant and UFC Gym. Nor does she point to facts demonstrating Defendant's involvement in the negotiations of the Membership Agreement between UFC Gym and Plaintiff. The record before this Court establishes only that Defendant was in privity with UFC Gym for the purpose of providing management technology and services. Plaintiff have not presented evidence that Defendant received a direct benefit under the Membership Agreement. The Court concludes because Defendant is not a closely related party to the Membership Agreement, it is not bound by the forum selection clause. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EUKQAU from PacerMonitor.com. ACCEPTANCE NOW: Court Certifies Class in McBurnie, et al. Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned as SHANNON MCBURNIE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ACCEPTANCE NOW, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01429-JD (N.D. Cal.). Named plaintiffs Shannon McBurnie and April Spruell seek class certification for their claims against defendant RAC Acceptance East, LLC under the California Karnette Rental-Purchase Act and related consumer protection statutes. RAC leases durable goods such as furniture or appliances to consumers on a rent-to-own basis. To rent the goods, all RAC customers must sign a Rental Purchase Agreement (RPA), which includes a $45.00 processing fee. Plaintiffs challenge the imposition of the processing fee as unlawful under the Karnette Act, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law, and ask to pursue these claims on behalf of a class certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs propose a class of "all individuals who entered into a Rental-Purchase Agreement with RAC in California at any time between December 11, 2016, and June 30, 2021 and who were charged a Processing Fee." Certification of this class is requested for all three of plaintiffs' claims: (1) violation of the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act (Karnette Act), Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 1812.620 et seq.; (2) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 1750 et seq.; and (3) violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200 et seq. Plaintiffs state with evidentiary support that tens of thousands of California consumers entered into tens of thousands of RPAs with RAC during the relevant period. RAC does not contest numerosity. This element is satisfied. The record demonstrates that the proposed class members are alleged to have had the same injuries which are based on the same rental agreements that all customers of RAC, including the named plaintiffs, signed. This satisfies typicality. Plaintiffs say that adequacy is satisfied because they have the same types of interests and suffered the same types of injury as other class members, and none have conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs have established adequacy. On the record before the Court, the issues that are common to the class predominate over the individual ones, whether the Court adopts plaintiffs' view of "actual cost" under the Karnette Act or RAC's. The same is true of plaintiffs' CLRA and UCL claims, which the parties agree are derivative of the Karnette Act claim. Superiority is not disputed by RAC and that requirement is satisfied. Therefore, the Court certifies the following class for plaintiffs' claims under the Karnette Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and UCL: All individuals who entered into a Rental-Purchase Agreement with RAC in California at any time between December 11, 2016, and June 30, 2021 and who were charged a Processing Fee. Plaintiffs Shannon McBurnie and April Spruell are appointed class representatives. Attorneys Zach Dostart of Dostart Hannink LLP and Michael Rubin of Altshuler Berzon LLP are appointed lead class counsel. Plaintiffs are ordered to submit by June 30, 2025, a proposed plan for dissemination of notice to the class. For the remaining case schedule, the last day to file dispositive and FRE 702 motions is set for Oct. 9, 2025. A pretrial conference is set for January 15, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. A jury trial is set for Jan. 26, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V4w7Ge from PacerMonitor.com. ACCESSIBE INC: Bid to Disqualify Krezalek as Defense Counsel Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the plaintiffs' motion to disqualify Martin S. Krezalek of the law firm Blank Rome from representing defendants in the action captioned as SHERWIN K. PARIKH, MD, P.C. d/b/a TRIBECA SKIN CENTER, and DILLON MUSIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- ACCESSIBE, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-04848-PKC (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs Sherwin K. Parikh, MD, P.C., d/b/a Tribeca Skin Center, and Dillon Music move to disqualify Martin S. Krezalek and his firm from representing defendants in this action, including Accessibe, Inc., because of information imparted by Tracy Armstrong, an attorney for Dillon Music, in a single telephone conversation with Krezalek. The motion is premised upon Rule 1.18 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct relating to duties owed by a lawyer to a prospective client. This action was commenced on June 26, 2024, by Parikh against Accessibe and five Doe defendants. Parikh is presently represented by four lawyers, each from a different law firm. Parikh alleges that Accessibe markets a software product on a subscription basis as an effective, quick, and cost-effective means to guarantee that a website is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C 12101 et seq. The general premise of Parikh's five claims in his initial complaint is that Accessibe did not provide the service it promised. According to the Court, while there is no evidence that Armstrong, in fact, conveyed to Krezalek information that could be significantly harmful to her client, it is also doubtful that she possessed much information of that nature concerning the "boilerplate" lawsuit. At the time of the Sept. 12 call, she felt Accessibe owed her client indemnification or a defense and called Krezalek, the lawyer suggested by representatives of Accessibe, in order to explore those options. Armstrong, a member of the bar who is described as being a member of the District Ethics Committee for District VIII of New Jersey, makes no claim that she did not understand the concept of privileged or confidential client information or that she freely disclosed such information over the phone with a lawyer who had been recommended by Accessibe. Plaintiffs' assertion, based upon Armstrong's thin declarations, that she conveyed information that could be damaging to Dillon Music in the event it sued Accessibe (which it did 34 days later) is, charitably put, implausible, the Court finds. Crediting Armstrong's version of the Sept. 12, 2024 call, plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Armstrong, acting on behalf of Dillon Music, communicated to Krezalek any information that could be significantly harmful to Dillon Music in its present action against Accessibe, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ml4y3Y from PacerMonitor.com. ACV AUCTIONS: Hill EPOA Lawsuit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as JEFFREY HILL, Plaintiff, v. ACV AUCTIONS INC.; ACV CAPITAL, LLC; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-00616-MJP (W.D. Wash.) to the King County Superior Court. The parties' stipulated motion to stay is denied. Plaintiff Jeffrey Hill filed this class action in King County Superior Court against ACV Auction Inc. and ACV Capital, LLC and various Doe Defendants, claiming Defendants violated the pay transparency requirements of Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA), RCW 49.58.110. Defendants removed the action to this Court, and Hill asserts that the matter was improperly removed. Jeffrey Hill lives in Washington and applied for a job opening Defendants offered in Washington. Hill alleges the posting for the job opening Plaintiff applied to 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. He alleges that he and the members of a proposed class of similarly-situated individuals lost valuable time applying for jobs with Defendants for which the wage scale or salary range was not disclosed. But Hill alleges only that he applied for the job, not that he was qualified for the position, that he received any specific response, or that he received an interview offer. Although the EPOA protects concrete interests of job applicants, the Court finds that the alleged violation Hill identifies did not cause an actual harm or present a material risk of harm to that interest. The Court finds that the salary disclosure requirement in the EPOA was established to protect concrete, non-procedural rights for job applicants and employees. According to the Court, Hill has failed to show how the lack of disclosure caused him an actual harm or material risk of harm consistent with the EPOA. The Court finds that Hill has failed to allege an injury to a concrete interest sufficient to satisfy Article III standing. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EGwkE1 from PacerMonitor.com. AECIQ: Court Grants Motion to Compel in Newman TCPA Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Allison Claire of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to compel in the case captioned as EDWARD G. NEWMAN, JR., Plaintiff, v. AECIQ, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01204-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal.) This matter is before the Court on a motion to compel brought by plaintiff. This discovery motion was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(1). The matter was heard before the Court on June 4, 2025. Plaintiff filed this putative class action on April 26, 2024, alleging that defendant has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing pre-recorded calls without consent to cellular telephone numbers. A pretrial scheduling order was issued on Aug. 30, 2024, setting a discovery deadline of March 18, 2025. The scheduling order was modified on April 24, 2024, and the discovery deadline was re-set to June 16, 2025. The deadline for all pretrial motions is August 18, 2025. A motion for class certification has not yet been filed. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to numerous Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Although the parties attempted to meet and confer, plaintiff states that defendant has continuously failed to produce responsive documents, even after confirming productions would be made. Plaintiff seeks records of pre-recorded phone calls, asserting this information is relevant to demonstrating the requirements for class certification. Defendant states that it "stands on its objections" to this category of requests and specifically argues that the discovery is premature. Defendant states that it will conduct a search after a class is certified in this case. The Court finds Defendant's objections in this case do not satisfy the requirements of federal discovery practice. For example, plaintiff's RFP No. 23 seeks documents containing specific information about outbound calls made by defendant or its vendors. Defendant objects that the RFP is "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" and "untethered to the allegations in Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint." These objections seriously strain defendant's credibility; plaintiff seeks information, in a putative class action about calls that violate the TCPA, about defendant's outbound calls. The RFP is very obviously related to the claims in the complaint and calculated to produce admissible evidence. Defendant's objections are non-specific, boilerplate, and nonresponsive, the Court concludes. Additionally, this discovery is not premature. Judge Claire explains, that discovery has not been ordered phased or bifurcated, so the parties have always been free to conduct discovery both as to class certification issues and as to the merits of claims and defenses. Defendant's conclusory argument provides no legal basis whatsoever for delaying any subset of discovery until after a class is certified. The operative scheduling order does not provide for such a process. The requested discovery would not be premature even if discovery had been phased, because the questions at issue plainly go to certification. The motion to compel will be granted and defendant ordered to fully and expeditiously respond to all discovery requests at issue. Plaintiff seeks the identity of, as well as documents and communications regarding, the lead vendor, dialing platform provider, and third party marketer involved in the calls to plaintiff. Defendant raises no specific objections to these discovery requests and the boilerplate objections are insufficient. Plaintiff seeks documents and information regarding complaints and DNC requests arising from telemarketing calls by defendant. Plaintiff seeks any records defendant contends supports its consent defense for its calls to potential class members. Plaintiff seeks production of documents related to plaintiff or his telephone number, which he contends defendant already promised to produce. Plaintiff seeks exemplars of any recorded messages that have been transmitted during call. The Court holds the motion to compel will be granted and defendant ordered to fully and expeditiously respond to all discovery requests at issue. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3ePvMO from PacerMonitor.com. AIR INDUSTRIES: Molina Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jose Molina, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIR INDUSTRIES COMPANY, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company doing business as SPS TECHNOLOGIES; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2024-01434938-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01232. The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendants on behalf of himself and the putative class: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Violation of Labor Code Section; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Archibald, Esq. Ethan W. Smith, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614-7276 Phone: (949) 223-7000 Facsimile: (949) 223-7100 Email: christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com ethan.smith@bclplaw.com AISIN MFG: Bell Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Armon Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AISIN MFG. ILLINOIS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 3:25-cv-01201 (S.D. Ill., June 6, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he earned bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from August 2019 through May 2025, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Defendant is headquartered in Marion, Illinois, and employs hundreds (if not thousands) of hourly employees in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Ethan Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 746-4050 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com ALAN BORJA: Xiong Suit Dismissed with Prejudice ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOU XIONG, next friend for V.L.; V.L., on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. COLONEL ALAN P. BORJA, in his official capacity as Warden of the Guam Department of Corrections, Hagåtña Detention Facility; SERGIO ALBARRAN, in his official capacity as Field Office Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;1 and DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:25-cv-00026 (D. Guam), the Hon. Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood entered an order: -- denying emergency application for a temporary restraining order, -- denying motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel, -- dismissing case with prejudice, and -- denying as premature motion for stay pending appeal. Accordingly, the Petitioner fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits, and the court need not proceed in its analysis of the remaining Winter factors in the absence of such a showing. Therefore, the TRO Application is denied. Furthermore, the Petitioner's motion for class certification is also defeated by the improper invocation of the AEA to challenge V.L.'s detention and removal under the INA. Thus, Petitioner lacks the purported commonality with others who may be similarly situated— but remain unnamed. For this same reason, the court cannot now conclude that Petitioner's claims are representative of other proposed class members or that Petitioner can fairly and adequately represent their interests despite his inability to assert challenge to removal under the AEA. Therefore, the Motion for Class Certification is DENIED. Finally, despite the court’s efforts during the June 7, 2025, hearing to have Petitioner identify independent grounds for the court’s jurisdiction under the INA, Petitioner ultimately agrees with Respondents: the claims asserted in the Amended Petition are predicated on Petitioner's purported detention and removal under the AEA and the President's statements or proclamations made thereunder. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jzJ4Q1 at no extra charge.[CC] ALBION COLLEGE: Knapp Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Knapp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALBION COLLEGE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00553-RJJ-MV (W.D. Ky., May 12, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former employees and students. But the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to the Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' and students' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. The Defendant is a liberal arts college based in Albion, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Phone: (248) 971-2500 Email: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com ALL-AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against All-American Construction, Inc. The case is styled as Calvin Robinson, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. All-American Construction, Inc., Case No. 25CV011635 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." All-American Construction, Inc. -- https://www.allamericanconstructions.com/ -- are a Design, Build, Remodel company working with both residential customers as well as in the commercial industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camron Dowlatshahi, Esq. MILLS SADAT DOWLAT LLP 333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-279-2612 Email: camron@msdlawyers.com AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Parties in Vaccaro Must Submit Class Cert Updates ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VACCARO v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-11852 (D.N.J., Filed July 19, 2018), the Hon. Judge Georgette Castner entered an order directing the parties to submit an additional update regarding the status of settlement and/or the parties' proposal for the scheduling of the next stages of this matter, including setting a deadline for the Plaintiff to file a renewed motion for Rule 23 class certification, by July 8, 2025. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. The Defendant retails auto parts.[CC] AMAZON.COM: Bid to Dismiss Medal Suit Tossed -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITA MEDAL, ESTHER YOO, GAYLE HAYES, ANTOINETTE STANIEWICZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01975-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order denying the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs allege that Amazon engages in a uniform, systematic practice of marketing and selling dietary supplements and failing to provide the required disclaimers for structure-function claims. The alleged conduct is sufficiently similar as to the purchased and unpurchased dietary supplements—e.g., they allege, "Amazon's systemic[ally] fail[s] to provide the mandated disclaimers on products with any health-related claims." Thus, any further concerns about the differences among the products at issue would be more appropriately resolved at the class certification stage. The Plaintiffs assert that the dietary supplements sold on Amazon follow an "identical labeling an advertising protocol—that is they systematically lack label and package requisite disclaimers despite lack of government review and approval with respect to their efficacy and safety." They allege a uniform practice of marketing and selling dietary supplements by making health-related claims about these products without required disclaimers. Amazon operates an e-commerce marketplace and lists various products online for consumers to purchase, including dietary supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UK3Fih at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN VAN LINES: Doria Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Van Lines, Inc. The case is styled as Andrea Doria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Van Lines, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-61153-RS (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. American Van Lines -- https://www.americanvanlines.com/ -- is the cross-country moving company that offers outstanding moves at reasonable rates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com ANDY FRAIN SERVICES: Wagner Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andy Frain Services, Inc. The case is styled as John P. Wagner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Andy Frain Services, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05505 (N.D. Ill., May 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Andy Frain Services -- http://www.andyfrain.com/-- is a provider of integrated solutions to security and events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Email: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com ANGEL GARITE: Bid for Summary Judgment in MAPS Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.A.P.S., on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ANGEL GARITE, MARY DE-ANDA-YBARRA, DONALD J. TRUMP, PAMELA BONDI, KRISTI NOEM, U.S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, TODD LYONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, MARCO RUBIO, U.S. DEPT. OF STATE, PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEPT. OF DEFENSE, MIGUEL VERGARA, BRET BRADFORD, BOBBY THOMPSON, CHARLOTTE COLLINS, ROSE THOMPSON, and MURRAY AGNEW, Case No. 3:25-cv-00171-DB (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Briones entered an order granting petition and issuing writ of habeas corpus: -- The Petitioner M.A.P.S.', on her own behalf and as representative of the certified class, "Class Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," is granted. The Court further entered an order that: -- Petitioner M.A.P.S.', on her own behalf and as representative of the certified class, "Motion for Preliminary Injunction," is construed as a motion for a summary judgment and is granted. -- President Donald J. Trump's "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua," Proclamation No. 10903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (Mar. 14, 2025), is declared unlawful. -- the Order DOES NOT ENJOIN Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as the President of the United States. -- Respondents Angel Garite, Mary De-Anda-Ybarra, Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Todd Lyons, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Marco Rubio, U.S. Dept. of State, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Dept. of Defense, Miguel Vergara, Bret Bradford, Bobby Thompson, Charlotte Collins, Rose Thompson, and Murray Agnew are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner or any member of the certified class, from the United States pursuant to Proclamation 10903. -- Respondents Angel Garite, Mary De-Anda-Ybarra, Donald J. Trump, Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Todd Lyons, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Marco Rubio, U.S. Dept. of State, Pete Hegseth, U.S. NOTICE of such designation, and a meaningful opportunity to respond to such designation prior to removal from the United States. Such notice must include the individual’s constitutional right to seek judicial review, inform individuals they may consult an attorney, at their own expense, regarding their detention and Respondents’ intent to remove them, and must be given and written in a language the individual understands. The Court determines declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and a writ of habeas corpus is proper. Petitioner has standing to bring these claims, and all of Petitioners claims are justiciable. Proclamation 10903 is unlawful because it fails to satisfy the statutory preconditions required to allow any president to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, 50 U.S.C. section 21. Proclamation 10903 is further unlawful because it fails to comport with the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and because it bars any application of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 of the United States Code, with respect to noncitizens admitted to the United States and to humanitarian relief from removal as established by Congress. Lastly, because this Court finds there are no genuine issues of material fact and treats Petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction as a motion for summary judgment, the Court issues permanent injunctive relief. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JFTER3 at no extra charge.[CC] ANTERO RESOURCES: Expert Discovery Extended to July 30 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVA KIRKBRIDE, as Trustee of the R and K Trust, on behalf of herself and classes of similarly situated persons, v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-03212-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion to extend expert deadlines as follows: Event Old Deadline Proposed New Deadline The Defendant's expert reports June 23, 2025 June 30, 2025 related to class certification Expert discovery related to July 23, 2025 July 30, 2025 class certification issues: Antero is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FpmxGR at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE COMMUTER: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by July 7 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAKHA ABULADZE, et al., v. APPLE COMMUTER, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky entered an order as follows: The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification by June 20, 2025. Any Defendant may respond to any such motion by July 7, 2025. The Plaintiffs may file a reply brief in further support by July 21, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B8u6if at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Hughes Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN HUGHES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-07668-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 4, 2025, will move for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs move this Honorable Court for an Order as follows: 1. That this case is certified to proceed to the merits as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) as to the claims for negligence, strict liability, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law set forth in the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint against the Defendant. In particular, Plaintiffs seek certification of the following classes under Rule 23(b)(2) (the "(b)(2) Classes"): The (b)(2) iOS Class: "all persons currently or formerly residing in the United States who own iOS devices and who, while residing in the United States, were tracked without consent by Apple's AirTag." Plaintiffs Àine O'Neill, and Lauren Hughes are the proposed representatives for this Class." The (b)(2) Tracker Detect Class: "All persons currently or formerly residing in the United States, who do not own iOS devices and who, while residing in the United States, were tracked without consent by Apple's AirTag, and downloaded the Tracker Detect app." Plaintiffs Tonya Harris and Frank Freeman are the proposed representatives for this Class. The (b)(2) non-iOS Class: "All persons currently or formerly residing in the United States, who do not own iOS devices and who, while residing in the United States, were tracked without consent by Apple's AirTag." Plaintiffs Tonya Harris and Frank Freeman are the proposed representatives for this Class. Excluded from the proposed (b)(2) Classes are the Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with the Defendants and/or their officers and directors and/or any of them. Also excluded from the proposed (b)(2) Classes are the Court, the Court's immediate family and Court staff. 2. That the Court certify the following issues Classes pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) (the "(c)(4) Classes") to adjudicate certain classwide issues: The (c)(4) iOS Class: "All persons currently or formerly residing in the United States who own iOS devices and who, while residing in the United States, were tracked without consent by Apple's AirTag." Plaintiffs Àine O’Neill, and Lauren Hughes are the proposed representatives for this Class. The (c)(4) Tracker Detect Class: "All persons currently or formerly residing in the United States, who do not own iOS devices and who, while residing in the United States, were tracked without consent by Apple's AirTag, and downloaded the Tracker Detect app. " Plaintiffs Tonya Harris and Frank Freeman are the proposed representatives for this Class. The (c)(4) non-iOS Class: "All persons currently or formerly residing in the United States, who do not own iOS devices and who, while residing in the United States, were tracked without consent by Apple's AirTag." Plaintiffs Tonya Harris and Frank Freeman are the proposed representatives for this Class. Excluded from the proposed (c)(4) Classes are Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendants and/or their officers and directors and/or any of them. Also excluded from the proposed (c)(4) Classes are the Court, the Court’s immediate family and Court staff. 3. That Plaintiffs Aine O'Neill, Lauren Hughes, Frank Freeman, and Tonya Harris are appointed as Class Representatives. 4. That Plaintiffs' counsel at the law firm Wade Kilpela and Slade, LLP (Gillian Wade, Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., David Slade, Sara D. Avila, Marc Castaneda, Lucy Holifield, Paige Noah, and James Lamarca) are appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g). Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LNc9TZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. Kristin Kilpela Graham, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. Paige T. Noah, Esq. James M. LaMarca, Esq. David Slade, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 2450 Colorado Ave., Suite 100E, Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: (501) 417-6445 E-mail: gwade@waykayslay.com sara@waykayslay.com marc@waykayslay.com kkg@waykayslay.com ek@waykayslay.com pnoah@waykayslay.com jlamarca@waykayslay.com slade@ waykayslay.com ARCHON VITAMIN: Flick Sues Over Product's False Protein Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE FLICK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHON VITAMIN LLC dba PlantFusion, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01359-AJB-SBC (S.D. Cal., May 28, 2025) accuses the Defendant of unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Mushroom + Protein Powder are misbranded and falsely advertised because they feature deceptive protein claims on the front label and misrepresent the percent of Recommended Daily Value of protein contained in each serving. Defendant, as the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and/or seller, expressly warranted that the protein powder products contained 18 grams of fully bio-available protein that constituted 36 percent of the Recommended Daily Value of protein. However, the said products do not conform to the express warranty that the products contain 18 grams of fully bioavailable protein because they contain a lower-quality protein with a PDCAAS of less than 1.0, says the suit. Archon Vitamin LLC dba PlantFusion is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Edison, NJ. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Bill of Costs in Crawford Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David W. Dugan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in part AriZona Beverages USA, LLC's bill of costs in the case captioned as KENNETH CRAWFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00220-DWD (S.D. Ill.). Plaintiff Kenneth Crawford brought this putative class action against Defendant AriZona Beverages USA, LLC for alleged deceptive and misleading labeling of its 20oz "Lite Arnold Palmer" beverage in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 505/1, et seq. On March 30, 2024, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendant, dismissed all other claims, and entered judgment accordingly. On April 12, 2024, Defendant filed a Bill of Costs, to which Plaintiff filed objections. Defendant seeks an award of $5,064.50 in its Bill of Costs: (1) $2,000.00 related to the video deposition of Dr. Matthews (Invoice 35813), (2) $1,451.00 related to the video deposition of Plaintiff (Invoice 6389250), and (3) $1,613.50 for transcript services for Plaintiff's deposition (Invoice 6392837). The Court finds Defendant has demonstrated that the following costs are reasonable and necessary: (1) $1,240.60 on Invoice 6392837, (2) $1,451.00 on Invoice 6389250, and (3) $782.00 on Invoice 35813. As such, Defendant's Bill of Costs is granted in the amount of $3,473.60. A copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WliTEN from PacerMonitor.com. ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Furman Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melissa Furman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, Case No. 25CI-000110 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Tehama, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01575-DJC-DMC. In the Complaint, Plaintiff purports to represent a class of all purchasers of Defendant's "Arizona brand Fruit Snacks (the 'Products')" in the United States, within four years prior to the filing of the action, through to the date of class certification, and a sub class of persons who purchased the Products within the State of California during that same period.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason H. Wilson, Esq. WILLENKEN LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 955-8020 Facsimile: (213) 955-9250 Email: jwilson@willenken.com - and - Nicholas P. Eliades, Esq. STEVENS & LEE 669 River Drive, Suite 201 Elmwood Park, New Jersey 07407 Phone: (201) 857-6764 Facsimile: (610) 371-8592 Email: Nicholas.eliades@stevenslee.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Watkins Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ascension Health. The case is styled as Heather Watkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ascension Health, Case No. 4:25-cv-00709-JMB (E.D. Mo., May 15, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Ascension -- https://healthcare.ascension.org/ -- is a faith-based healthcare organization that delivers personalized, compassionate care to all, especially to those who need it the most.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Parkhill, Esq. Ben Barnow, Esq. Riley W. Prince, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES PC 205 W. Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 621-2000 Email: aparkhill@barnowlaw.com b.barnow@barnowlaw.com rprince@barnowlaw.com - and - John S. Steward, Esq. STEWARD LAW FIRM LLC 14824 West Clayton Road, Suite 24 St. Louis, MO 63017 Phone: (314) 504-0979 Fax: (314) 594-5950 Email: js@molawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Colleen Kinsey, Esq. Maureen O. Bryan, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP - St. Louis 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (417) 850-0336 Email: ckinsey@atllp.com mbryan@armstrongteasdale.com ASFC LLC: Herrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASFC LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alyssa Herrera, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASFC LLC d/b/a Sierra Vista Healthcare, Aspen Skilled Healthcare, INC., Case No. 25CECG02335 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., May 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited - Other Employment." ASFC LLC doing business as Sierra Vista Healthcare -- https://www.sierravistahealth.com/ -- is a nursing home in Fresno, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com ATHENA BITCOIN: Amended Class Notice Entered in Jackson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEON JACKSON, v. ATHENA BITCOIN, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00331-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mark E. Walker entered an order regarding amended notice: Accordingly, the Defendant's attempt to secure an eleventh hour extension of a deadline it requested itself by pointing fingers at this Court is disingenuous and strains credulity. Nonetheless, the Court will grant Defendant the requested extension. The Defendant shall supplement the record and/or amend its responses and replies to the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Class Certification on or before Friday, June 13, 2025. To remove all doubt, this deadline is final. Defendant would be well advised in the future to avoid filing a "notice" like this trying to grant its own extension. Athena is a cryptocurrency technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tq445R at no extra charge.[CC] AUDUBON COMPANIES: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Walker Says ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM WALKER, individually and for others similarly situated v. AUDUBON COMPANIES, LLC, AUDUBON FIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, and AUDUBON ENGINEERING COMPANY, L.P., Case No. 2:25-cv-00764 (W.D. Pa., June 5, 2025) is a class and collective action lawsuit to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Walker and the other day rate workers regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But Audubon does not pay Walker and its other day rate workers overtime at time and a half their regular rate of pay. Instead, Audubon pays the Plaintiff and its other day rate workers a flat sum each day worked, ostensibly covering the first 10 hours worked in a day, and an amount equal to their day rate divided by 10 hours for each hour worked in excess of 10 in a day. Likewise, Audubon's day rate pay scheme violates the WPCL by depriving Plaintiff Walker and the other day rate workers of earned overtime wages on their regular paydays and/or following the termination of their employment, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Walker was employed as an environmental inspector and assistant chief inspector by the Defendants from approximately January 2021 until February 2025 in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Audubon Companies, LLC provides inspection and engineering, procurement, and construction services to the energy industry throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 P Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, PC 3634 California Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com B&H HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Denied in Burgos Wage Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled Jennifer Burgos, etc., Appellant, v B&H Healthcare Services, Inc., etc., et al., Respondents, Index No. 505308/20 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department affirmed the order of the Supreme Court, Kings County denying the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The plaintiff commenced this putative class action, inter alia, to recover damages for unpaid overtime wages. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants failed to properly compensate the plaintiff for hours that she worked overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 USC Sec. 201, et seq.; hereinafter FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. The plaintiff asserted that she was bringing these allegations on behalf of herself and all employees similarly situated. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, pursuant to 29 USC § 216(b) for conditional certification of a collective action and pursuant to CPLR article 9 for class certification. In an order dated April 8, 2022, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff appeals. The plaintiff failed to make a factual showing sufficient to demonstrate that she and any potential plaintiffs suffered similar injuries as a result of the defendants' alleged violations, as the complaint and the plaintiff's affidavit did not contain sufficient detail to meet the low bar for certification, the Appellate Court finds. In this case, the Court holds the plaintiff failed to demonstrate her entitlement to class certification pursuant to CPLR article 9. The general and conclusory allegations in the complaint and the plaintiff's affidavit were insufficient to sustain the plaintiff's burden. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were pursuant to 29 USC Sec. 216(b) for conditional certification of a collective action and pursuant to CPLR article 9 for class certification, the Appellate Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Decision & Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CkbkXs Counsel for Appellant: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Ave Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 E-mail: office@ShalomLawNY.com Counsel for Respondents: Laurent S. Drogin, Esq. Brittany K. Lazzaro, Esq. TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN, LLP 1350 Broadway New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 216-8000 Fax: (212) 216-8001 E-mail: ldrogin@tarterkrinsky.com blazzaro@tarterkrinsky.com BANK OF AMERICA: Parties Seek Remote Appearance to Class Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLE NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 5:23-cv-04999-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order permitting the Parties' counsel to appear at the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification remotely via Zoom videoconference on June 18, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. The Plaintiff's lead counsel, George A. Hanson, Alexander T. Ricke, and Caleb J. Wagner, of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, maintain their office in Kansas City, Missouri, and accordingly a remote appearance would be substantially less burdensome. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel will be traveling for depositions the following week. Otherwise, the parties would have sought a one-week continuance of the hearing date as an alternative to a remote appearance. In sum, the issuance of an order permitting a remote appearance via Zoom will greatly limit Plaintiff’s counsel’s travel expenditures and travel time Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, online banking, and mortgage services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4rN6iX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Linder, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-400-5822 E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam P. Kohsweeney, Esq. Chelsea E. Espiritu, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com cespiritu@omm.com BARRICK ENTERPRISES: Court to Initially OK Settlement in Stansbury ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA STANSBURY, v. BARRICK ENTERPRISES, INC. and TODD BARRICK, Case No. 1:22-cv-00342-YK (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Yvette Kane will grant the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and will preliminarily certify the proposed Settlement Class. The Court will also approve the proposed Notice, as amended per the Court's discussion herein, and the appointment of CAC Services Group, LLC to serve as Settlement Administrator, and will schedule a Final Fairness Hearing. In light of the Court’s conclusion that the requirements set forth in Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) have been met on a preliminary basis, the Court will preliminarily certify the proposed Settlement Class. On March 8, 2022, Plaintiff, on behalf of similarly situated current and former delivery drivers, filed suit against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), by using a flawed system to reimburse their delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their personal vehicles. The parties define the proposed "Class Members", "Settlement Class Members", the "Class", or the "Settlement Class" as follows: "Defendants' drivers who received mileage reimbursements from (a) the earlier of 3 years prior to actual opt-in date or Dec. 20, 2021 through (b) the date of Preliminary Approval of Settlement." The Court notes that the proposed Settlement establishes a settlement fund “inclusive of payments to the putative class, attorneys’ fees, litigation and mediation costs, administration costs, and a modest service award,” and the maximum settlement amount that Defendants could be obligated to pay is $160,000. Barrick offers diesel, bio-diesel, kerosene, gasoline, and racing fuel. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wJ0Jyd at no extra charge.[CC] BENEFITS PARTNER: Court Consolidates Four Related Cases ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Linda V. Parker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted a stipulation to consolidate the following cases and appoint class counsel: 1. PRESTON TILGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BENEFITS PARTNER, LLC d/b/a SALUS GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11108-LVP-APP; 2. JANINE OROSCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BENEFITS PARTNER, LLC d/b/a SALUS GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11204-SKD-EAS; 3. ARTHUR WAGNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BENEFITS PARTNER, LLC d/b/a SALUS GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11219-MAG-DRG; and 4. JOHN STACHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BENEFITS PARTNER, LLC d/b/a SALUS GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11353-MFL-KGA. The Court ordered as follows: Preston Tilger v. Benefits Partner, LLC d/b/a Salus Group, Case No. 2:25-cv-11108-LVP-APP, shall be designated as the lead action, with all pleadings in the Consolidated Action to bear the caption In re Benefits Partner, LLC d/b/a Salus Group Litigation, Case No. 2:25-cv-11108-LVP-APP. Janine Orosco v. Benefits Partner, LLC d/b/a Salus Group, Case No. 2:25-cv-11204-SKD-EAS; Arthur Wagner v. Benefits Partner, LLC d/b/a Salus Group, Case No. 2:25-cv-11219-MAG-DRG; and John Stacho v. Benefits Partner, LLC d/b/a Salus Group, No. 2:25-cv-11353-MFL-KGA shall be administratively closed and the files of the Consolidated Action shall be maintained in one file under Master File No. Case No. 2:25-cv-11108-LVP-APP. The Court appoints Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC as Interim Class Counsel. Interim Class Counsel, during all phases of this litigation. It is the Court's intent that, as to all matters common to these coordinated cases, and to the fullest extent consistent with the independent fiduciary obligations owed by any and all Plaintiffs' counsel to their clients and any putative class, pretrial proceedings shall be conducted by and through Interim Class Counsel. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oyHmly from PacerMonitor.com. BENJAMIN MOORE: Reed Wage Lawsuit Remanded to State Court --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kirk E. Sherriff of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as IAN C. REED, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BENJAMIN MOORE & CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00214-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.) to the Fresno County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In December 2024, plaintiff Ian C. Reed initiated this action by filing a complaint in Fresno County Superior Court. On Feb. 18, 2025, defendant Benjamin Moore & Co. removed the action to this Court. On March 20, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action, which was fully briefed and heard before the assigned magistrate judge. On May 16, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this matter be remanded to Fresno County Superior Court and ordered that the Clerk of Court assign a district judge to this action. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court agrees that this case should be remanded to state court as defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The findings and recommendations correctly conclude that $13,360 is in controversy for plaintiff's derivative claims, given that plaintiff's allegations put at issue thirty-days-worth of waiting time penalties as well as the maximum penalty regarding alleged wage statement violations. he findings and recommendations also correctly reason that attributing the total amount defendant calculated for attorneys' fees would be improper given that plaintiff brings his case as a putative class action and appropriately find the amount at issue for attorneys' fees. The findings and recommendations further correctly "zeroed-out" the regular rate claim and off-the-clock claims, given that defendants' assertions were speculative, unsupported, and potentially duplicative, and that no better assumptions for calculating the amounts in controversy were identified. Regarding the minimum wage claim, defendant assumed plaintiff suffered one hour of unpaid wages for every five shifts plaintiff worked. The findings and recommendations found that defendant's assumptions were reasonable and that defendant had met its burden in demonstrating that amount was in controversy. The Court agrees that an assumed violation of one hour of unpaid work with an assumed violation rate of 20% of plaintiff's shifts is reasonable given the language of plaintiff's complaint -- that is, that defendant had a "systematic, company-wide policy and practice" of failing to pay employees for all hours works and that certain of such violations occurred "regularly" or "sometimes." For plaintiff's meal period and rest break claims, defendant assumed a 50% violation rate. he magistrate judge rejected the 50% assumption as unreasonable and instituted an alternate assumption of 20%. The magistrate judge applied the same reasoning to the rest break claim. The Court agrees with the conclusion of the findings and recommendations that the amount in controversy for the rest period and meal period claims is $6,104.00 each. The Court concludes in total, plaintiff's claims put at issue about $39,471, which is less than the jurisdictional minimum. Thus, defendant has failed to meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, the findings and recommendations issued on May 16, 2025 are adopted. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lLXwxU from PacerMonitor.com. BLOOMBERG LP: Opposition to Class Cert Bid in Syeed Due June 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07464 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 11, 2020), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order as follows: -- Opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by June 23, 2025. -- The reply shall be filed by July 14, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment. The issues raised in the application for a motion in limine will be decided as necessary in conjunction with the motion for class certification which is now deemed reinstated. Also reinstated are the accompanying motions to seal. Bloomberg is a privately held financial, software, data, and media company.[CC] BLOOMBERG LP: Santoro Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARK SANTORO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLOOMBERG L.P., and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-02014-RGK-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 7, 2025, will move the Court for an extension of time to file a motion for class certification. On Jan. 23, 2025, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action in state court alleging the Defendant violated California's Trap and Trace Law, a provision of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). On March 7, 2025, the Defendant removed the case to federal court. Bloomberg is an American privately-held financial, software, data, and media company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=277V3e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 590-3927 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com BLUE CORN HARVEST: Solanas Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Corn Harvest, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kristan Solanas, and others similarly situated v. Blue Corn Harvest, LLC, Juan C. Manzano, Santos Garcia, Case No. 1:25-cv-00714-ADA-ML (W.D. Tex., May 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Blue Corn Harvest Bar & Grill -- https://bluecornharvest.com/ -- features a main dining area and a full service bar with great variety of local and international wine and beer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. ROSS & SCALISE, P.C. 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 474-7677 Fax: (512) 474-5306 Email: charles@rosslawpc.com BROADMARK REALTY: Grant Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN L. GRANT, BRIAN L. GRANT LIVING TRUST, and MCN HOLDINGS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROADMARK REALTY CAPITAL INC., READY CAPITAL CORPORATION, JEFFREY B. PYATT, JONATHAN R. HERMES, KEVIN M. LUEBBERS, DANIEL J. HIRSCH, PINKIE D. MAYFIELD, STEPHEN G. HAGGERTY, DAVID A. KARP, NORMA J. LAWRENCE, THOMAS E. CAPASSE, ANDREW AHLBORN, JACK J. ROSS, FRANK P. FILIPPS, MEREDITH MARSHALL, DOMINIQUE MIELLE, GILBERT E. NATHAN, ANDREA PETRO, J. MITCHELL REESE, TODD M. SINAI, and WATERFALL ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01013 (W.D. Wash., May 28, 2025) asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Broadmark and certain of its former officers and directors and Ready Capital and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors, as well as Ready Capital’s affiliated investment manager. The case arises from materially false and misleading statements made in the joint proxy statement used to solicit the support of Broadmark shareholders for the Merger, which was prepared and disseminated by defendants on April 20, 2023. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this securities class action on behalf of all holders of Broadmark common stock as of the record date of the May 2023 merger of Broadmark and Ready Capital. Broadmark Realty is real estate investment trust that was based in Seattle, WA. Its common stock was traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "BRMK." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Juli E. Farris, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com - and - Keil M. Mueller, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 601 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (971) 253-4600 E-mail: kmueller@kellerrohrback.com - and - James I. Jaconette, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Francisco J. Mejia, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: jamesj@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com fmejia@rgrdlaw.com BUCKBEE SEED COMPANY: Brewer Files Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buckbee Seed Company LLC. The case is styled as Olivia Brewer, and for similarly situated persons v. Buckbee Seed Company LLC, Case No. 2025-LA-0000195 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Winnebago Cty., June 5, 2025). The case type is stated as "Employment Dispute (Excluding Discrimination)." The Buckbee Weed Co. -- https://buckbeeseed.com/ -- is a hemp grower and processor based in Rockford, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: Patrick@usaemploymentlawyers.com BWNVT MOTORS LLC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BWNVT Motors, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Greg Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. BWNVT Motors, LLC, CAVT, LLA, FFBH Motors, LLA, MVVT Motors, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006799 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." BWNVT Motors, Inc is a reputable automotive company based in Colma, California, specializing in vehicle sales and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Joshua Orshansky, Esq. COUNSELONE, PC 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2624 Phone: 310-277-9945 Fax: 424-277-3727 Email: anthony@counselonegroup.com CANNON COCHRAN: Barbour Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Christopher Barbour, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C25-00410 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04787. The Plaintiff seeks to impose civil penalties for unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations, meal periods, rest periods, and reporting time wages. the Plaintiff is specifically claiming that he and all other aggrieved employees (were required to perform work off the clock for which they were not compensated.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey M. Cohon, Esq. GARRELL COHON KENNEDY, LLP 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 460 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 647-0730 Fax: (213) 647-0732 Email: jcohon@gckllp.com CARGOMATIC INC: Duenas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cargomatic, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Duenas, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Cargomatic, Inc., Case No. 25STCV16450 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Cargomatic -- https://cargomatic.com/ -- is a real-time on-demand network for Local Truck Availability.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com CARLA J. SCHWARTZ: Tuulik Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Darlene Tuulik, Carla J. Utter, Christeen Johnson, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. Carla J. Schwartz, MD Jaime S Schwartz, Jaime S. Schwartz MD PC, Karen Herbst MD, an individual, Karen Herbst MD PC, Total Lipedema Care, Modernizing Medicine, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00576 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04446-GW-SSC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Breach of Contract.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Aaron M. Olsen, Esq. Alreen Haeggquist, Esq. Anna C. Schwartz, Esq. HAEGGQUIST AND ECK LLP 225 Broadway Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 342-8000 Fax: (619) 342-7878 Email: aarono@haelaw.com alreenh@haelaw.com annas@haelaw.com The Respondents are represented by: Michael Grimaldi, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMIGH 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 250-1800 Fax: (213) 481-0621 Email: Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com CENTER STAGE: Jonas et al. Sue Over Alleged Drip Pricing -------------------------------------------------------- GRACE JONAS, JOSEPH MEYER, JAKE PAVLOW, and ERIK SCHALK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTER STAGE COMEDY L.P., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02698 (E.D. Pa., May 28, 2025) arises from Defendant's drip pricing, a practice of disclosing hidden or junk fees late in the buying process. The Plaintiffs each purchased tickets to comedy shows at one of Defendant's comedy clubs through its website. The prices of these tickets were misleadingly and unlawfully advertised as lower than the total prices Plaintiffs would pay after Defendant smuggled in its junk fees just as they were completing the transactions. Because Defendant’s junk fee was variable and disclosed at the last step of the transaction, the Plaintiffs were unable to compare the costs of Defendant's tickets to the cost of attending other ticketed events. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring this class action, on behalf of all other similarly injured consumers, asserting claims for unjust enrichment and for violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. Headquartered in Gladwyne, PA, Center Stage Comedy L.P. is doing business as Helium Comedy Clubs. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGEULZZI & BENDESKY PC 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3895 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com CENTRAL UNITED PACKAGING: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central United Packaging Inc. The case is styled as Ruben Martinez Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Central United Packaging, Inc., IGC Packaging and Supply, Case No. 25CV126069 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 9, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Central United Packaging Inc. is a packaging company based in Union City, California, specializing in providing packaging solutions for various industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com CENTURY TILE: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century Tile LLC. The case is styled as Roberto Lopez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Century Tile LLC, Case No. 25STCV16350 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Century Tile LLC -- https://www.centurytile.com/ -- specialize in the installation of ceramic tile, porcelain, natural stone, metals, and glass.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sam Sani, Esq. SANI LAW, APC 595 E. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 522 Pasadena, CA 91101-2017 Phone: 310-935-0405 Fax: 310-935-0409 Email: ssani@sanilawfirm.com CERNER CORPORATION: Melvin Files Suit in W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cerner Corporation. The case is styled as Lois Melvin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health, Union Health System, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00368-JAM (W.D. Mo., May 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 833-4827 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut St., Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com CHAPEL OF THE ROSES: Milanes Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jesus Jorge Milanes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Chapel of the Roses Mortuary, a business entity of unknown form; S.E. Combined Services of California, Inc., a California corporation; SCI Shared Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; SCI Shared Services, LLC, a business entity of unknown form; Los Osos Valley Memorial Park, Inc., a business entity of unknown form; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV13047 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 June 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05220. The Complaint alleges unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and seeks statutory penalties for multiple types of alleged violations, including: Failure to provide meal periods; Failure to provide rest periods; Failure to pay hourly wages and overtime; Failure to provide accurate written wage statements; Failure to timely pay all final wages; and Failure to indemnify.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie M. Francis, Esq. STINSON LLP 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: 602.279.1600 Facsimile: 602.240.6925 Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com COLEMAN CO: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Coleman Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02255 (D. Minn., May 28, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class. In addition, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Coleman Company, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.coleman.com, which offers camping and outdoor enthusiast supplies for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Triesch Sues For Deceptive Toothpaste Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ WALTER TRIESCH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY and TOM’S OF MAINE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04443 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2025) seeks monetary and injunctive relief against Defendants under New York General Business Law and the common law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants deceptively marketed and labeled their toothpastes as safe while concealing and failing to disclose that the said products contain dangerous concentrations of lead--a known neurotoxin with no safe level of human exposure--and other, dangerous heavy metals, like arsenic and mercury. Despite their knowledge--or their duty to know--Defendants failed to test for or eliminate these dangerous contaminants. As a result of Defendants’ concealments and misrepresentations, consumers paid a price premium for contaminated products, says the suit. Colgate-Palmolive Company is a consumer products company headquartered in New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 Email: raphael@janove.law CONTEMPORARY INFORMATION: Wins Bid to Dismiss Dwyer FCRA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gretchen S. Lund of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted Contemporary Information Corp.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned as ALEXIS DWYER, Plaintiff, v. CONTEMPORARY INFORMATION CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-CV-00199-GSL-APR (N.D. Ind.) pursuant to Rule 12(c). In May 2024, Plaintiff applied for several apartments on Zillow. As part of the application process, Plaintiff was required to obtain a criminal background report, which she did from Defendant. The parties dispute whether Plaintiff was able to view the report before it was published to prospective landlords. On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff reached out to Defendant to dispute certain information on the report. The report referenced a criminal case, which encompassed several offenses with the label: "Disposition not provided by source." Defendant confirmed receipt of Plaintiff's dispute on May 20, 2024, and by May 28, 2024, Defendant updated the report to reflect the proper disposition for the criminal case. On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff brought the instant case. She claims that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act because of the inaccuracies on the initial criminal background report furnished by Defendant. Because of the inaccurate report, Plaintiff alleges that she was denied numerous housing opportunities. In addition to actual damages, Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to statutory and punitive damages because Defendant's conduct was willful. As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses Plaintiff's class allegations. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She defines the class as: All natural persons residing in the United States on whom, from two year prior to the filing of this action and through the date of class certification, Defendant compiled and furnished a consumer background report, which contained adverse criminal case information that did not contain a disposition. Defendant denies that this class may be certified and asserts that any claims on behalf of this "class" lack a factual and legal basis. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant willfully and/or negligently violated the FCRA by including incomplete and misleading adverse criminal case information in consumer reports. She also alleges that Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to follow reasonable procedures in preparing and selling consumer reports. Judge Lund holds that the Plaintiff does not allege how members of its purported class were injured. The complaint defines the class, in short, as persons whom Defendant compiled and furnished a consumer background report that contained allegedly defamatory content. The natural reading of this statement suggests that the members of the class received the background reports directly from Defendant. Not that Defendant published the reports to third parties. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to allege that members of its purported class suffered a concrete injury. The class lacks standing. Notwithstanding the lack of class standing, Plaintiff must demonstrate that she personally has standing for her individual claim by alleging a particularized and concrete injury. Plaintiff's allegation of a violation of the FCRA is insufficient. According to the Court, the Complaint does not provide any specific facts to support her allegation of causation: that her housing applications were denied because of the mistake on her background report. Plaintiff's contentions on the matter are conclusory. Plaintiff must also show that Defendant's alleged violation of the FCRA was committed with actual knowledge or reckless disregard for the FCRA's requirements. However, the Complaint lacks any facts to support an allegation of a willful violation. Plaintiff's allegations are wholly conclusory. And Plaintiff's subsequent briefing on the instant motion fails to provide any additional argument. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims for willful violations of the FCRA fail, the Court finds. Even if a landlord had denied Plaintiff's housing applications because of her criminal background report, the Court is skeptical that such a denial would be due to Defendant's mistake. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8eFRb2 from PacerMonitor.com. EDUCATION CORP: Burdette Sues Over Data Security Failures --------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN BURDETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDUCATION CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00829-AMM (N.D. Ala., May 28, 2025) arises out of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise sensitive information entrusted to Defendant that contained personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other individuals. The data breach occurred between May 28, 2024, and May 29, 2024. However, letters notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach were only sent on April 30, 2025. Thus, the Defendant failed to timely and adequately notify Plaintiff and other individuals of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Education Corporation of America is a privately held company that operates a chain of for-profit colleges across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Boulevard Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 900-2218 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com EDWARD L. CAPLA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Civil Conspiracy Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the the defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the case captioned as MD DOUGLAS SCHOTTENSTEIN and SCHOTTENSTEIN PAIN AND NEURO, PLLC, d/b/a NY SPINE MEDICINE, Plaintiffs, -against- EDWARD L. CAPLA and YOLANDA CAPLA, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-10883-PKC (S.D.N.Y.) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . Defendants Edward L. Capla and Yolanda Capla move to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., urging that plaintiffs in this diversity case have not alleged with reasonable probability an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332, a federal court has original jurisdiction over a civil action between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The initial Complaint invoked solely federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. A conversion claim against Edward Capla alleged that he was jointly and severally liable for $129,356,404 in damages. The initial Complaint alleged that from roughly 2014 through 2020, plaintiffs and the Capla defendants each received annual distributions of approximately $6 million from their shared Regenokine practice, and that the Capla defendants have subsequently earned increasing annual revenue at plaintiffs' expense. The Amended Complaint invoked both diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. It asserted that the Capla defendants were liable for more than $75,000 in damages as a result of an alleged civil conspiracy. The Second Amended Complaint invoked both diversity and federal question jurisdiction, asserting that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Third Amended Complaint invoked solely diversity jurisdiction, and again alleged an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. It seeks at least a 50% interest in the Capla defendants' revenue from their use of the Regenokine treatment program and seeks damages greater than $75,000. While the four iterations of the complaint have invoked varying theories of liability and cited a range of damages figures, the Court concludes that from the outset of this action plaintiffs have consistently alleged an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. The initial Complaint asserted that the Capla defendants received annual revenue of approximately $6 million in connection with their work with plaintiffs and that their annual revenue has likely increased since 2020. Plaintiffs have asserted that the Capla defendants' alleged conversion and participation in a civil conspiracy have wrongfully deprived plaintiffs of some part of this revenue. According to the Court, the allegations are sufficient to satisfy the low burden required to make a good faith representation that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In support of their motion, defendants have not rebutted the presumption of good faith afforded to plaintiffs' claimed damages. They cite no evidence that shows to a legal certainty that the amount recoverable cannot meet the jurisdictional threshold, the Court finds. Defendants' legal argument relies heavily on the pleading requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, which is not at issue in this case. The reliance on plaintiffs' failure to identify a damages calculation in their Rule 26 initial disclosures is also misplaced, the Court adds. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K9q7ad from PacerMonitor.com. EHPLABS LLC: Chavez Sues Over Protein Powder's False Ads -------------------------------------------------------- RICK CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EHPLABS, LLC dba Blessed Protein, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-04520 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2025) accuses the Defendant of misbranding and falsely advertising its Blessed Plant Protein Powder. Plaintiff Chavez alleges that the product's front label features deceptive protein claims without presenting a Recommended Daily Value of protein contained in each serving that is corrected for protein digestibility. Moreover, the protein claim on the principal display panel of the product is deceptive and misleading to reasonable consumers because that claim is not clarified and contextualized by the disclosure of the quality-adjusted percent daily value in the Supplement Facts panel. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action, asserting claims for unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. EHPLabs, LLC, doing business as Blessed Protein, is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Valley Village, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com EVERYTHING BREAKS: Settlement in Campbell Suit Gets Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as STEPHAN CAMPBELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EVERYTHING BREAKS, INC., Defendant, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00861-GMN-EJY (D. Nev.). This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Incentive Awards and Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on June 4, 2025, after notice of the Final Approval Hearing was given in accordance with the Court's Order Conditionally Certifying Class and Preliminarily Approving Settlement. The Court finds, concludes, and orders as follows: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and over the Parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332, including all members of the Settlement Class certified for settlement purposes in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order. The "Settlement Class" means: " All persons in the United States who, during the Class Period, (1) received two or more telephone solicitation calls made by or on behalf of Defendant, (2) on a telephone number that appears on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days at the time of the calls, (3) where the telephone number appears on EBI_000029 or EBI_000030 and was obtained by Defendant in the same manner Defendant obtained Plaintiff's telephone number." Excluded from the Settlement Class are all judges assigned to the Action and their clerks and staff. The Agreement is the product of arm's-length settlement negotiations between the Plaintiff and Class Counsel, on the one hand, and Everything Breaks and Everything Breaks' Counsel, on the other hand. The Settlement's terms constitute, in all respects, a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement as to all Settlement Class Members in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and directs its consummation pursuant to its terms and conditions. The Plaintiff, in his role as Class Representative, and Class Counsel adequately represented the Settlement Class for purposes of entering into and implementing the Agreement. Accordingly the Agreement is finally approved in all respects, and the Parties are directed to perform its terms. The Parties and Settlement Class Members who were not excluded from the Settlement Class are bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The Court approves Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees of $248,750 (representing 25% of the $995,000.00 Settlement Fund), which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable under the particular circumstances in this case. Additionally, Class Counsel is awarded $6,574.34 in costs of litigation. The award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs are to be paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Agreement. Additionally, the Court concludes that Verita's administrative costs of $126,000 were reasonable incurred for the benefit of the class. Accordingly, the administrative costs of $126,000 are awarded, such amount to be paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Agreement. he Court finds the payment of service award in the amount of $5,000 to the Settlement Class Representative is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the Settlement Class Representative is awarded $5,000, such amount to be paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Agreement. The Settlement Class is finally certified, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement and this Order and Final Judgment. The requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) have been satisfied for settlement purposes, for the reasons set forth herein. The Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; there are questions of law and fact common to the class; the claims of the Class Representative is typical of the claims of the Settlement Class; the Class Representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy between the Settlement Class Members and Everything Breaks. The Court dismisses, with prejudice, without costs to any party, except as expressly provided for in the Agreement, the Action. The Claims Administrator is directed to distribute the consideration to the Settlement Class pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Plaintiff and each and every one of the non-excluded Settlement Class Members unconditionally, fully, and finally release and forever discharge the Released Parties from the Released Claims as provided for in the Agreement. In addition, any rights of the Settlement Class Representative and each and every one of the Settlement Class Members to the protections afforded under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code (and any other similar, comparable, or equivalent laws) are terminated. A copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PuTmJD from PacerMonitor.com. EZ ADVOCATES: Bush Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ----------------------------------------------- BYRON BUSH, Plaintiff v. EZ ADVOCATES, LLC and RAHAMAN KARGAR, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-01375 (M.D. Fla., May 28, 2025) is a class action seeking recovery against the Defendants for their violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the State of Florida during the period of about January 29, 2023 through July 8, 2024. Allegedly, the Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff and others similarly situated for all hours worked, including for all overtime hours worked in every workweek. In addition, the Defendants’ willfully failed to keep accurate records of Plaintiff's hours worked, says the suit. Headquartered in Tampa, FL, EZ Advocates, LLC provides services related to developers partnership ownership. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pinkhasov, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367-1305 Telephone: (718) 701-4605 Facsimile: (718) 715-1750 E-mail: dpinkhasov@consumerattorneys.com - and - Emanuel Kataev, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 E-mail: ekataev@consumerattorneys.com FAITH CHURCH: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Philip P. Simon of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the collective action captioned as JENNIE CALVACHE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, FAITH CHURCH OF LAFAYETTE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-53- PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.) pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants, Vision of Hope Ministries and Faith Church of Lafayette, have opposed the conditional certification of the FLSA collective action. This action is brought on behalf of current and former Vision of Hope interns who, in the three years preceding this motion, furnished services to Defendants but were not paid minimum wage and overtime as allegedly required by the FLSA. Defendants Vision of Hope Ministries and Faith Church of Lafayette are Indiana non-profit corporations with their principal place of business in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. The named plaintiff, Ms. Calvache, alleges that she and other similarly situated interns performed core labor for Vision of Hope and Faith Church without receiving any significant training, being illegally denied lawfully due payment. Calvache started working for Defendants as in intern in July 2021, she worked for them until January 2022, and then began another term as an intern in January 2023 which went until February 2023. Plaintiff claims for an internship to be lawfully unpaid, the internship must pass the "primary beneficiary" test, which focuses on what the intern receives in exchange for her work and realizes that the inter-employee relationship differs significantly from a standard employee-employer relationship. In Hollins v. Regency Corp., 867 F.3d 830, 836 (7th Cir. 2017), the Seventh Circuit also recognized factors set out by the Department of Labor to enable a court to distinguish between an employee and an unpaid trainee. In the context of unpaid internships, a non-exhaustive set of considerations should include: (1) whether there is a clear understanding that the internship is unpaid; (2) whether the internship provides training similar to an educational environment; (3) whether the internship is tied to the intern's formal education program; (4) whether the internship accommodates the intern's academic commitments; (5) whether the internship is of limited duration and provides beneficial learning; (6) whether the intern's work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant education benefits; and (7) whether there is no entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship. While it is uncontroverted that the interns in this case entered the agreement knowing it would be an unpaid position, Plaintiff claims the internship still fails the primary beneficiary test. According to Plaintiff, the interns received very little training, the program did not accommodate the intern's academic commitments but rather required them to either not be involved in formal education or to seek special permission, the interns' work displaced the work of other employees, and while there was no express promise of a paid job at the end of the internship, there was a pipeline from internship to paid staff positions. In sum, Plaintiff contends the internship program was really a job, with only minimal education benefits, and without the requisite pay. In this case, Defendants don't challenge, for the purpose of this motion, that Plaintiff is similarly situated to the class members. Instead, they argue Plaintiff cannot demonstrate even a modest showing that she and the other individuals that participated in the internship program were "victims" of a policy that violated the law. Defendants claim Plaintiff is misguided using the "primary beneficiary test" to determine if Calvache has made a moderate showing that the Defendants violated the law. The Court finds under either the primary beneficiary test articulated by case law or the extremely similar also 7-factor test articulated by the Department of Labor, Plaintiff has easily made a modest showing that her rights were violated. Plaintiff has submitted deposition testimony as well as the Declaration of Calvache tending to show that the actual training afforded to interns was only approximately 1-2 hours per week, Calvache received very little training or education, and she was working around 53-62 hours per week, oftentimes at the retail store or providing day care and overnight supervision for the residents of the facility. Judge Simon holds that although Defendants argue the factors weigh heavily in Defendants' favor, the test at this stage in the case, for conditional certification, does not rely on who has more evidence. For all of these reasons, he finds it appropriate to grant conditional certification in this case. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sg6a9f from PacerMonitor.com. FANDANGO MEDIA: Falsely Advertised Tickets' Prices, Zeid Says ------------------------------------------------------------- STACY ZEID, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANDANGO MEDIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04763 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2025) is a class action against Defendant arising out of its practice of falsely advertising lower prices for movie tickets, only to disclose later during the transaction that a consumer must pay a higher price because Fandango charges a mandatory convenience fee. According to the complaint, the bait and switch pricing practice, also known as drip pricing, is utilized by Defendant to sell tickets at prices higher than advertised and promised to consumers, and to improperly extract additional money from its customers for its own profit by unilaterally imposing mandatory fees. Fandango only discloses that the true total cost of a movie ticket includes a mandatory convenience fee at the last stage of the transaction, after consumers spend time and effort going through multiple webpages and selecting theater seats, says the suit. The Plaintiff asserts claims on her own behalf, and all other consumers similarly situated consumers, who paid convenience fees to purchase movie tickets to theaters located throughout the United States, except for theaters in New York, pursuant to the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act to recover actual damages or statutory damages from the Defendant. Fandango Media, LLC is an American ticketing company that sells movie tickets via its website and its mobile app.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Clisura, Esq. VOZZOLO LLC 499 Route 304 New City, NY 10956 Telephone: (201) 630-8820 Email: avozzolo@vozzolo.com aclisura@vozzolo.com - and - Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq. Matthew G. Norgard, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH T. GOLDSTEIN, PLLC 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1006 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 E-mail: ken@krislovlaw.com mnorgard@krislovlaw.com - and - Michael R. Karnuth, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL R. KARNUTH 203 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 391-0203 E-mail: mike@karnuthlaw.com FAST EASY: Wins Bid to Dismiss Coffey TCPA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Steven P. Logan of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted Fast Easy Offer LLC, GFSG LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Realty Phoenix, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.'s joint motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned as Vicki Coffey, Plaintiff, vs. Fast Easy Offer LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02725-SPL (D. Ariz.). The case is dismissed with prejudice. On Oct. 9, 2024, Plaintiff initiated this putative class action against Defendants alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act , 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c), and the Do-Not-Call regulations issued under that statute. On Jan. 22, 2025, she filed her First Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading for purposes of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff alleges that starting in early 2024, she received numerous telephone calls and text messages from a rotating series of phone numbers, seeking to solicit Plaintiff to sell her home or engage various entities to represent or assist her in the sale of her home. Despite having registered her cell phone number with the national Do-Not Call Registry since 2004, she received a minimum of six phone calls and two text messages from a phone number that associated itself with the website https://www.fasteasyoffer.com. That website is allegedly operated by Defendant FEO, which is also alleged to share employees and officers with KW Phoenix. Plaintiff alleges that FEO and KW Phoenix share revenue from mass telephone call and text message marketing, and that KWRI receives a portion of this revenue from KW Phoenix. In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff argues that the calls and text messages she received constitute prohibited "telephone solicitations" in violation of the TCPA and its implementing regulations. However, Defendants argue that: (1) Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that the calls or texts were "solicitations" within the meaning of the TCPA, and (2) her claim against KWRI should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that KWRI is directly or vicariously liable under the TCPA. The primary issue before the Court is whether, as a matter of law after accepting all of Plaintiff's allegations as true, Defendants' communications can be considered telemarketing or solicitations under the TCPA. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege a solicitation because her alleged caller "wanted to buy her home," but did not ask Plaintiff "to herself purchase, rent, or invest in anything." The TCPA's plain text focuses on calls and messages that encourage the solicited party's purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services. However, Plaintiff argues that the soliciting Defendants' offer to purchase her home contains within it an implied offer of services; i.e., she argues that the messages, under the guise of a "free" service, were a pretextual attempt to solicit her to work with Defendants for the sale of her home, which would be to Defendants' ultimate pecuniary benefit. Thus, Plaintiff argues that the phone calls and text messages were sent by FEO either: (1) purchase Plaintiff's home to then immediately resell it or reassign the purchase contract to third-party buyers, (2) identify ‘motivated home seller' leads to market to third-party homebuyers, or (3) provide conventional real estate representation for seller transactions. It is true that, construing Plaintiff's factual allegations in the most favorable light, were Plaintiff to agree to use FEO's services to sell her house, Defendants would ultimately benefit from an "effective fee" deducted from the offer price. In that sense, the calls and texts might constitute "solicitations" in the colloquial sense of the word. But even if, in that hypothetical scenario, Plaintiff did not make as much money as she might have made selling her home without FEO's services, she would still be making money—and not spending a cent on purchasing any goods or services from Defendants. The calls and texts therefore cannot constitute "solicitations" within the plain statutory meaning of the term, and it is this statutory meaning that must carry the day, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kb4WBR from PacerMonitor.com. FORTREA HOLDINGS: July 8 Class Action Notice Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u4(a)(3)(A), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the plaintiff in the securities lawsuit captioned as LUCAS DESLANDE, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -v.- FORTREA HOLDINGS INC.,THOMAS PIKE, and JILL MCCONNELL, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-04630-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) to advise in writing of the date and manner in which he published a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period no later than July 8, 2025. On June 2, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of certain holders of Fortrea securities. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5; and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78t(a). A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RgEgJY from PacerMonitor.com. GENSTONE ENTERPRISES: Cole Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genstone Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Virginia Cole, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Genstone Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00639 (M.D. Tenn., June 9, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. GenStone Products -- https://genstone.com/ -- has been providing durable faux rock, brick and stone siding to consumers and building professionals worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Scott Alan Lanzon, Esq. THE LANZON FIRM 550 W. Main Street, Suite 550 Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: (865) 212-0955 Fax: (865) 212-0956 Email: scott.lanzon@gmail.com HANOVER VENTURES: Settlement in Gonzalez Suit Gets Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as DENNY GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff, -against- HANOVER VENTURES MARKETPLACE LLC d/b/a LE DISTRICT, JOHN DOE COMPANY 1 d/b/a HPH HOSPITALITY, PAUL LAMAS, PETER A POULAKAKOS, NICOLAS ABELLO, and DAVID COUCKE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01347 (S.D.N.Y.). After participating in a private mediation session, and despite their adversarial positions in this matter, Named Plaintiff DENNY GONZALEZ and Defendants HANOVER VENTURES MARKETPLACE LLC d/b/a LE DISTRICT, JOHN DOE COMPANY 1 d/b/a HPH HOSPITALITY, PAUL LAMAS PETER A POULAKAKOS, NICOLAS ABELLO and DAVID COUCKE negotiated a settlement of this litigation. On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed for preliminary approval of the settlement, which, for settlement purposes only, Defendants did not oppose. On July 24, 2024, the Court denied preliminary approval without prejudice and directed the Parties to submit a revised motion by Aug. 16, 2024. On Aug. 16, 2024, the Parties filed a supplemental letter motion. On Aug. 20, 2024, Honorable Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J. entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement on behalf of the Rule 23 class and FLSA collective set forth therein, conditionally certifying the settlement class, appointing Lee Litigation Group, PLLC as Class Counsel, appointing Arden Claims Service, LLC as Settlement Administrator, and authorizing notice to all Class Members. The class settlement was originally contemplated at $450,000 for a class of 1,500 individuals. However, based on the increased class size of 1,868, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the settlement amount was increased to $571,440. On Jan. 22, 2025, the Court held a hearing, but because Defendants were in default of their settlement funding obligations and had not produced the class list to the administrator, following argument on settlement fairness, the final fairness hearing was adjourned to June 4, 2025. Defendants cured default of their funding obligations and properly provided the class list thereafter. Defendants also denied admission of liability on the part of Defendants. On May 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Certification of the Settlement Class, Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement and Approval of the FLSA Settlement, which for settlement purposes only, Defendants did not oppose. That same day, Plaintiff also filed Motions for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses and for Service Award. The motions were unopposed and Defendants did not object to the requests for attorneys' fees, costs, or service payment. The Court adopts and finally approves, for the purpose of this Order, the definition of the settlement "Class" as that term is defined in the Preliminary Approval Order. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court confirms as final its certification of the Class for settlement purposes based on its findings 1n the Preliminary Approval Order and in the absence of any objections from Class Members to such certification. Pursuant to 29 Sec. U.S.C. 216(b), the Court approves the FLSA Settlement and certifies the collective class under the FLSA based on its findings in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Court confirms as final the appointment of Plaintiff Denny Gonzalez, as representative of the Class, both under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). The Court likewise confirms as final the appointment of C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group PLLC as Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and for individuals who opted into the Litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants the Motion for Final Approval and finally approves the settlement as set forth therein. The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate in all respects and that it is binding on Class Members who did not timely opt out pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Court specifically finds that the settlement is rationally related to the strength of Plaintiffs claims given the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of further litigation. The Court finds that the proposed settlement is procedurally fair because it was reached through vigorous, arm's-length negotiations and after experienced counsel had evaluated the merits of Plaintiff's claims through factual and legal investigation. The settlement is also substantively fair. All of the factors set forth in Grinnell, which provides the analytical framework for evaluating the substantive fairness of a class action settlement, weigh in favor of final approval. Therefore, the Court finds that the settlement 1s adequate given: (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (3) the risks of establishing liability and damages; (4) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (5) the lack of any objections; (6) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; and (7) that the Total Settlement Amount is within the range of reasonableness in light of the best possible recovery and the attendant risks of litigation. The Court also finds that the Class' reaction to the settlement was positive, as no Class Member objected to the settlement. The Court finds that the proposed plan of allocation is rationally related to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective claims asserted. The mechanisms and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement by which payments are to be calculated and made to Class Members who did not timely opt out are fair, reasonable and adequate, and payment shall be made according to those allocations and pursuant to the procedures as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and awards Class Counsel their requested fees of $190,480, one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus costs and expenses in the amount of $16,474.61, which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable based on: (A) the number of hours worked by Class Counsel during the Litigation; (B) the results achieved on behalf of the Class; (C) the contingent nature of Class Counsel's representation; (D) the complexity of the issues raised by the Litigation; (E) a lodestar cross check; and (F) Class Counsel's recognized experience and expertise in the market. The Court finds Class Counsel's hourly rates to be reasonable. The Court approves and finds reasonable the service award for Plaintiff Denny Gonzalez in the amount of $10,000, in recognition of the service he rendered as Class Representative. This amount shall be paid from the Settlement Fund, subject to the terms of the Parties' Settlement Agreement. The Court approves and finds reasonable the payment of the Settlement Administrator's fees to Arden Claims Service, LLC in the amount of $60,000, which shall be paid by or on behalf of Defendants, out of the Settlement Fund, according to the terms of the Parties' Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PAbEcA from PacerMonitor.com. HENKEL CORP: Garcia Consumer Lawsuit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Percy Anderson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned a Silvia Garcia v. Henkel Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-03302-PA-MAA (C.D. Cal.) to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiff contends that the Notice of Removal filed by defendant Henkel Corporation fails to satisfactorily establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional minimum for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). Plaintiff filed her Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Feb. 1, 2022. She served Defendant with the Complaint on March 10, 2025, and Defendant filed its Notice of Removal on April 10, 2025. The Court ordered Defendant to show cause in writing why the action should not be remanded because Defendant's Notice of Removal failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that CAFA's amount in controversy requirement was met. Defendant responded to the Order to Show Cause. After reviewing Defendant's Response, the Court discharged the Order to Show Cause without prejudice to any arguments Plaintiff might assert in a properly-noticed Motion to Remand. Plaintiff then filed the Motion to Remand. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges false advertising claims against Defendant for what she alleges are fictitious regular prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on products sold through Defendant's website. Plaintiff alleges that the products were not sold at the higher reference price in the 90 days prior to her purchase of the Product. She asserts claims pursuant to California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), California Business and Professions Code section 17501, and the Consumers Legal Remedy Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Code section 1750, on behalf of "all persons who purchased one or more of Defendant's products from Defendant's Website while in California within the statute of limitations period at a purported discount from a higher reference price." Plaintiff's Complaint seeks all available legal, equitable, and declaratory relief, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees. With respect to injunctive relief, the Complaint alleges that plaintiff would purchase either the Product or other products from Defendant again in the future if she could feel sure that Defendant's regular prices accurately reflected Defendant's former prices and the market value of the products, and that its discounts were truthful. In her Motion to Remand, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million as required by CAFA because the value of the compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and cost of complying with possible injunctive relief Defendant relies upon in its Notice of Removal and supporting declarations to satisfy CAFA's amount in controversy requirement is inadequately supported and inflated. In support of its Notice of Removal, Defendant submitted a Declaration prepared by Stacey Hull, Defendant's Vice President of Sales, in which she stated: "Based on information and belief and a review of Henkel's business records for sales made nationwide over the past four years through the DevaCurl website, I estimate based on historical sales statistics that over the past four years, Henkel has sold approximately $2,000,000 in DevaCurl products through its website to consumers in California." In both the Notice of Removal, and in Opposition to the Motion to Remand, Defendant has relief on Ms. Hull's declaration to support its allegation that the compensatory damages, or the value of restitutionary relief that the putative class could be awarded, is $2,000,000. According to Defendant's Opposition, the Complaint seeks attorney's fees, which under a conservative 25% of the total recovery cross-check, implicates a minimum of $1,000,000 in attorneys' fees at the low end of the damages spectrum if only the $2,000,000 damages exposure and $2,000,000 punitive damage exposure were only considered. In its Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, and again in its Opposition to the Motion to Remand, Defendant values the cost of the injunctive relief potentially sought by Plaintiff at $1,500,000. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's evidence of $2,000,000 in compensatory damages is inflated, speculative, and fails to support an amount in controversy in excess of CAFA's jurisdictional minimum because Ms. Hull's evidence is based on the prior four years of sales, but the proposed class is limited to the applicable statute of limitations period, which is three years. Defendant needed to provide evidence to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA's jurisdictional minimum. Rather than provide sufficient evidence, Defendant relied on the same evidence Plaintiff has already shown was insufficient, and as a result, Defendant failed to meet its burden to establish an amount in controversy in excess of CAFA's jurisdictional minimum. Defendant's evidence of the cost of compliance with the possible injunctive relief is similarly flawed, the Court finds. The Court concludes that Defendant's evidence in support of an amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000 lacks evidentiary support or a reasonable basis. Based on the evidence provided by Defendant after Plaintiff challenged the amount in controversy, it cannot conclude that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy, including compensatory damages or restitution, plus punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and the cost of injunctive relief, exceeds $5,000,000. The Court therefore concludes that Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA's jurisdictional minimum by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pkB2mQ from PacerMonitor.com. HOST INT'L: Settlement in Lewis Suit Obtains Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge John A. Kronstadt of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as DEBRA LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00075-JAK (C.D. Cal.). The Court entered final judgment in accordance with the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and the Order re Motion for Final Approval, and the Order for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. The "Class" is comprised of the three subclasses as defined in the Order dated October 13, 2022 as amended by the Order dated June 3, 2024: * LWO Class: All employees of Host who worked at Los Angeles International Airport ("LAX") from January 1, 2018 through July 1, 2019, were members of the bargaining unit represented by UNITE HERE Local 11, and who received less than the cash wage portion of the cash wage with health benefits amount under section 10.37.2(a)(2)(1) of the LWO (i.e., less than $12.08 from January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2018 and less than $13.75 from July 1, 2018 through July 1, 2019. * Vacation Time Class: All employees of Host who worked at LAX and were members of the bargaining unit represented by UNITE HERE Local 11 and who were laid off or "furloughed" in March-April 2020 and were not paid out accrued but unused vacation at the time of the layoff/furlough. * Waiting Time Penalties Class: Any member of the LWO Class and/or Vacation Time Class who was laid off or "furloughed" in March-April 2020. The "PAGA Group" is defined as all members of the Class who are or previously were employed by Defendant at the Los Angeles International Airport during the PAGA Period, which is October 10, 2019 to November 5, 2024, the date of preliminary approval. The Class and PAGA Group are referred to collectively as the "Settlement Class." The release of claims by the Class includes claims arising under the applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order(s), California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1021.5, Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance (L.A.A.C. Sec. 10.37 et seq.), Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 185321, the Los Angeles Administrative Code Secs. 10.37 et seq., California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 222, 223, 225.5, 226, 226.3, 227.3, 2698 et seq. and, as it relates to claims for failure to pay minimum wage under the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance or failure to payout vacation upon termination, California Labor Code sections 218.5, 218.6, 510, 1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198. "Released Claims" means all wage and hour claims, rights, debts, demands, damages, liabilities and causes of action that were asserted or could have been asserted based on the factual allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, including all claims for violations of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance, failure to pay out vacation time wages upon termination, waiting time penalties, wage statement penalties, and Defendant's alleged unfair business practices stemming from these alleged violations (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq.); claims for restitution, disgorgement, and other equitable relief, liquidated damages, or punitive damages; and attorneys' fees and expenses. The release includes all Released Claims by the PAGA Group under the California Private Attorneys General Act (Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2698 et seq.), which occurred during the PAGA Period, that were alleged or could have been alleged based on the facts set forth in the Second Amended Complaint and/or Plaintiffs' PAGA notices to the LWDA. Consistent with the Final Approval Order, judgment is hereby entered against Defendant Host International, Inc. in the total amount of $1,775,000. From this amount, the following amounts shall be paid: a. The Net Settlement Amount to be paid to Settlement Class Members is $1,241,506.46. It is ordered that any and all checks issued shall state on their face that, consistent with standard bank procedures, they are void if not negotiated within one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of their issuance, and any unnegotiated checks will be deposited within the State of California Controller's Office of Unclaimed Funds in the name of the individual to whom the check had been sent and issued, according to the methodology and terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. b. The PAGA Payment to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency and Aggrieved Employees in the total amount of $20,000, with $15,000 being paid to the LWDA and $5,000 being paid to Aggrieved Employees. c. Settlement Administration costs to Phoenix Settlement Administrators in the amount of $14,950. d. Service Awards in the amount of $8000 each to Class Representatives Debra Lewis and Marlene Mendoza (for a total of $16,000). e. Attorney's fees of $443,750.00 to Class Counsel, to be divided as follows: $44,375 to Jeremy Blasi of UNITE HERE Local 11; $199,687.50 to Teukolsky Law, APC; and $199,687.50 to Gilbert & Sackman. f. Attorney's costs of $38,793.54 to Class Counsel, to be divided as follows: $17,193.24 to Teukolsky Law, APC and $21,699.95 to Gilbert & Sackman. The action is dismissed with prejudice, and with each party to bear its own fees and costs, except as otherwise stated in this Judgment. A copy of the Court's Judgment is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lwgvnj from PacerMonitor.com. JAMES M LEBLANC: Loses Bids to Stay Charles, et al. ADA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Elizabeth Erny Foote of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied the defendants' original motion to stay and renewed motion to stay the case captioned as BRUCE CHARLES, ET AL. VERSUS JAMES M LEBLANC, ET AL., Case No. 18-cv-00541-EEF-MLH (W.D. La.). Defendants' motion for clarification is denied as moot. Inmates at David Wade Correctional Center filed this class action suit for injunctive and declaratory relief, challenging the conditions of confinement and delivery of mental health services on extended lockdown. Plaintiffs alleged the policies and practices in place at DWCC violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Court certified a class of all prisoners who are or will be subject to extended lockdown at DWCC to pursue the Eighth Amendment claims (the "Class") and a subclass consisting of all individuals on extended lockdown at DWCC who have or are perceived as having a qualifying disability related to mental health -- as defined by the ADA -- to pursue the ADA and RA claims (the "Subclass"). On Nov. 1, 2022, the Court issued a 165-page opinion holding that: (1) Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by housing inmates -- including those with a diagnosed mental illness -- in inhumane conditions while on extended lockdown and by failing to provide those inmates adequate mental health care; and (2) Defendants violated the ADA and RA by failing to make reasonable accommodations for inmates with mental disabilities and by employing unlawful methods of administration. Beginning on Jan. 17, 2023, the Court conducted a fourteen-day bench trial for the remedy phase. During this phase, the Court heard evidence of conditions of confinement between March 15, 2020, and Aug. 30, 2022. On July 18, 2024, the Court issued an opinion, Remedial Order, and Judgment. In its 172-page Opinion, the Court held that Plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Eighth Amendment, ADA, and RA violations for which they sought protection had continued since the liability phase of trial and would continue into the future. The Court enjoined Defendants from: (1) continuing to violate the Eighth Amendment rights of the Class through the unconstitutional conditions of confinement and provision of deficient mental health services; and (2) continuing to violate the ADA and RA rights of the Subclass. Finally, the Court ordered Defendants to remedy the enumerated constitutional, ADA, and RA violations. On Aug. 2, 2024, Defendants appealed the July 18, 2024, rulings. That same day, Defendants also sought a stay with this Court pending appeal and requested expedited consideration. On Aug. 5, 2024, the Court denied the request for expedited consideration. On Aug. 12, 2024, before this Court ruled on the motion to stay, Defendants moved the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to stay this Court's orders pending appeal. On April 23, 2025, the Court convened a status conference to discuss the procedural status of this case. At the end of that status conference, the Court ordered the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order by June 6, 2025, that addresses briefing deadlines for any pending motions (including the pending motion to stay) and sets forth a plan for proceeding under the Court's Remedial Order. Following the submission of those scheduling orders, the Court intends to "determine a realistic scheduling order for the parties moving forward." On May 14, 2025, Defendants renewed their motion to stay and additionally moved to stay the Court's April 23, 2025, Order. Defendants point to four alleged errors that they argue make them likely to succeed on the merits on appeal: (1) the Remedial Order violates principles of federalism; (2) the Remedial Order is impermissibly vague and overbroad; (3) the Remedial Order violates the requirements of the PLRA; and (4) the Remedy Opinion and Remedial Order are not based upon current conditions. Defendants additionally argue that the Fifth Circuit's decision to rehear Parker v. Hooper en banc supports staying this matter pending appeal. In determining whether to grant a motion to stay pending appeal, courts consider the following factors: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. The Court does not find Defendants are likely to succeed on appeal. It conducted two trials in this matter, for a combined total of thirty-one days. During those trials, the Court heard extensive evidence of the conditions at DWCC. It subsequently issued detailed findings of law and fact in two opinions and related orders, totaling over 300 pages. Defendants' purported errors do not affect the validity and propriety of the Court's rulings. Thus, Defendants are not likely to succeed on the merits. After extensive consideration of the merits, the Court found that the conditions at DWCC violated Plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights and that these violations were likely to continue. To further delay remediation of these violations, Defendants filed the instant motions. The harms and costs Defendants allege they will suffer if the Court proceeds are negligible in light of the severe harms being sustained by Plaintiffs. This is especially so considering that the Remedial Order is not the final iteration of the Court's injunctive relief. Instead, the Remedial Order simply sets out a process for determining if Defendants continue to engage in the identified violations. If -- as Defendants allege -- they have remediated the identified violations, the cost and burden of complying with this process should be minimal. Because the stay factors weigh heavily in favor of Plaintiffs, the non-movant, Defendants' motion to stay must be denied, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ru8jSE from PacerMonitor.com. KANDLELIGHT LLC: Dunbar Sues Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------- Kirkpatrick Dunbar, and other similarly situated disabled individuals v. KANDLELIGHT LLC, and FRANK & WALTER EBERHART L.P. NO. 1, Case No. 1:25-cv-04759 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2025), is brought against the Defendants seeking equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief; monetary and nominal damages; along with attorney9s fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"). On March 4, 2025, and other occasions, Plaintiff attempted to enter Defendants Premises, which operates a centrally located coffee shop and wine bar using quality sources products, curated cocktails, and comedy/live music throughout the week creating a unique NYC experience. Defendants9 Premises is less than 6.1 miles from Plaintiff9s home. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as a step at the entrance, Plaintiff was unable to enter Defendants9 Premises. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as a step at the entrance, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the commercial space and public accommodations within Defendants Premises. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel into and within Defendants Premises, Plaintiff has been unable to purchase a cup of the blended coffee, have a pastry, and listen to the comedy show with friends at Defendants Premises. As a result Plaintiff was forced to seek another coffee shop that provides free travel and independent access as required by the ADA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. Kandlelight owns, leases, operates, maintains, and controls all, or the relevant portions, of Defendants9 Premises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 E 55th Street, Suite 4H New York, NY 10022 Phone: (646)770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com KNOWBE4 INC: Water Island Sues Over Omitted Info in Vista Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- WATER ISLAND EVENT-DRIVEN FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNOWBE4, INC., SJOERD SJOUWERMAN, JEREMIAH DALY, STEPHEN SHANLEY, KEVIN KLAUSMEYER, SHRIKRISHNA VENKATARAMAN, GERHARD WATZINGER, KARA WILSON, KKR & CO., INC., KKR KNOWLEDGE INVESTORS L.P., ELEPHANT PARTNERS, ELEPHANT PARTNERS I, L.P., ELEPHANT PARTNERS II, L.P., ELEPHANT PARTNERS 2019 SPV-A, L.P., ELEPHANT PARTNERS II-B, L.P. and VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-22574 (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2025) is a class action arising from misstatements and omissions of material fact in the Proxy for KnowBe4's February 2023 take-private Merger with Vista and other public filings that concealed the self-interested, conflicted and tainted sales process that robbed Plaintiff and Class Members of the true value of their shares. KnowBe4 and Vista announced the Merger on October 12, 2022, the beginning of the Class Period. From the beginning, KnowBe4, Vista and the Director Defendants represented that the Merger and its terms were the result of a fair and robust sales process. The Proxy contained a similar representation by the Control Group and Vista that they believe that the Merger is substantively and procedurally fair to KnowBe4's unaffiliated security holders, based largely on a recitation of the same putative bases of the recommendations by the Special Committee and Board of Directors. Unbeknownst to the Unaffiliated Stockholders (and other Class Members), the Merger was driven and dominated by the Control Group -- and assisted by conflicted financial advisors retained by the Special Committee and Board -- that wholly poisoned the merger process. Specifically, the facts recited in the Proxy concerning the sales process that purportedly justified the Merger were self-serving, misrepresented the truth and omitted material details, including, among other things, that: (i) the Special Committee lacked independence from its own self-interest and domination by the Control Group; (ii) the conflicted Special Committee favored Vista over other potential bidders; (iii) the sales process was historically and structurally advantageous to Vista to the point that other interested parties were unable to realistically succeed in the fixed "bidding" process; (iv) the Special Committee did not adequately consider strategic alternatives other than the sale of KnowBe4; and (v) KKR increased its planned rollover or reinvestment into the post-close KnowBe4 by 50-100% after it learned of the deal price, says the suit. The Proxy and other public filings concealed facts through a self-serving recitation of the history of the sales process that consistently omitted or shaded the truth, the suit alleges. The material misstatements and omissions of material facts in the Proxy prevented Plaintiff and other Unaffiliated Stockholders from properly evaluating the Merger and caused them to accept Merger consideration that failed to adequately value KnowBe4 common stock, and for which they could have received higher consideration in a fair and impartial sales process, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Water Island Event-Driven Fund is an investment fund managed by Water Island Capital, LLC. KnowBe4, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Clearwater, Florida. KnowBe4, which prior to the Merger traded on the Nasdaq National Market System, provides security awareness training and simulated phishing platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jorge L. Piedra, Esq. Brandon M. Sadowsky, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 E-mail: jpiedra@kttlaw.com bsadowsky@kttlaw.com - and - Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. Brendan Brodeur, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com rcappucci@entwistle-law.com bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com LABORATORY CORP: Judge Kavanaugh Resolves Class Action Question --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, DBA LABCORP, PETITIONER v. LUKE DAVIS, ET AL., Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Supreme Court held that a federal court may not certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members. In 2017, Labcorp introduced self-service kiosks for patients to check in for their appointments. Although the touchscreen kiosks are accessible to most patients, blind and visually impaired patients require assistance. To accommodate those patients who cannot use a kiosk without assistance, or who prefer not to use one, Labcorp maintained and bolstered its front-desk services at patient service centers. Despite those accommodations, legally blind plaintiffs sued Labcorp in the U. S. District Court for the Central District of California. They claimed that Labcorp's new kiosks violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which provides for a minimum of $4,000 in state-law statutory damages per violation. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class with potential damages of up to about $500 million per year. In May 2022, the District Court certified a damages class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The class consisted of "all legally blind individuals in California who visited a LabCorp patient service center in California during the applicable limitations period and were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations due to LabCorp's failure to make its e-check-in kiosks accessible to legally blind individuals." Labcorp petitioned for an immediate interlocutory appeal under the special interlocutory appellate procedure authorized by Rule 23(f ). Labcorp contended that plaintiffs' class definition was overbroad and would sweep in many uninjured members, including blind patients who would not use kiosks anyway because they dislike kiosks or prefer to speak with a front-desk employee when checking in for appointments. In August 2022, while Labcorp's petition for interlocutory appeal was still pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the District Court clarified plaintiffs' class definition. The District Court explained that the class included "all legally blind individuals who due to their disability, were unable to use" Labcorp kiosks in California. Importantly, the court stated that, in refining the class definition, this Order does not materially alter the composition of the class or materially change in any manner the original May class certification order. In September 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted Labcorp's Rule 23(f ) petition and authorized an interlocutory appeal of the May order. The Court of Appeals ultimately approved the May 2022 class certification. After the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, Labcorp sought review in this Court. The Court granted certiorari to decide whether federal courts may certify a Rule 23 damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members. Instead of resolving that important merits question, the Court dismisses this case as improvidently granted. That is presumably because the Court does not want to deal with plaintiffs' threshold mootness argument. To be clear, the Court does not hold that the case is moot. Rather, the Court simply declines to decide either the threshold mootness question or the important class-action question on which it granted certiorari. In arguing that the case is moot, plaintiffs contend that Labcorp appealed the wrong class-certification order. Judge Kavanaugh says that is incorrect. The August order did not grant or deny class certification, as the District Court indicated. So to challenge the class definition under Ninth Circuit law, Labcorp could appeal only the May 2022 certification order. Labcorp did so. Labcorp has proceeded reasonably in the District Court, the Court of Appeals, and this Court. According to Judge Kavanaugh, there is no barrier to this Court's deciding the class-action question presented in the context of reviewing the Ninth Circuit's judgment. He concludes he would resolve the question presented and reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. He would hold that federal courts may not certify a damages class pursuant to Rule 23 when the class includes both injured and uninjured class members. He respectfully dissents from the Court's order dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L6MPCJ LAMCO HARVEST INC: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lamco Harvest, Inc. The case is styled as Patricia Jimenez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Lamco Harvest, Inc., Case No. ECU004087 (Cal. Super. Ct., Imperial Cty., May 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited." Lamco Packing is an active interstate freight carrier based out of Heber, California.[BN] LEXON INSURANCE: Settlement in California Bail Bond Litigation OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement with Defendants Lexon Insurance Company and Danielson National Insurance Company in the consolidated case In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-00717-JST (N.D. Cal.) A proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement has been reached between Plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed Settlement Class, and Defendant Lexon, that resolves certain claims against Lexon pertaining to its conduct in the California bail bonds market. A proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement has been reached between Plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed Settlement Class, and Defendant DNIC, that resolves certain claims against DNIC pertaining to its conduct in the California bail bonds market. The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on May 22, 2025. The Court finds the proposed Settlements appear to be the product of intensive, thorough, serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations; have no obvious deficiencies; do not improperly grant preferential treatment to the Settlement Class Representatives or segments of the Settlement Class; and appear to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. Certification of Settlement Class The Court approves, under Rule 23(e)(2), the proposed Settlement Class because the Settlement Class and its Representatives meet all relevant requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). "Class" or "Settlement Class" is all persons who, between February 20, 2004 and April 25, 2024 (the "Settlement Class Period"), paid for part or all of a commercial bail bond premium in connection with a California state court criminal proceeding. Specifically excluded from this Class are Defendants in the Action; the officers, directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant and any person acting on their behalf; any person who acted as a bail agent during the Settlement Class Period; any judicial officer presiding over this Action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff; and any juror assigned to this Action. Plaintiffs Shonetta Crain and Kira Monterrey are appointed Settlement Class Representatives. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP is appointed Settlement Class Counsel under Rule 23(g)(3). Settlement Class Counsel and Defendants Lexon and DNIC are authorized to take, without further Court approval, all necessary and appropriate steps to implement the Settlements. All claims brought in this Action against Lexon and DNIC are dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fBiy4y from PacerMonitor.com. LHC GROUP: Court Extends Time to File Summary Judgment Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA COX, v. LHC GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00760-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Kristine G. Baker entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to file motion for summary judgment. The deadline for filing motions, except motions for class certification and motions in limine, set forth in the Court's Final Scheduling Order is extended to, and including, June 18, 2025. LHC states that the Court's Final Scheduling Order set a June 11, 2025, deadline for filing summary judgment motions. LHC states that the counsel for the plaintiff Christina Cox has no objection to the motion. LHC is a national provider of in-home healthcare services and innovations for communities. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P4VtEW at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Must Oppose Watts Class Cert Bid by August 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watts, et al., v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-12845 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order granting: -- the Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Class Certification until Aug. 4, 2025, and -- Reply in further support of motion until Sept. 1, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. Liberty Mutual is an American diversified property and casualty insurer.[CC] LIVE NATION: $20MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN DONLEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MICHAEL RAPINO, and JOE BERCHTOLD, Defendants. No. 2:23-cv-06343-KK (ASx) CLASS ACTION Hon. Kenly Kiya Kato SUMMARY NOTICE OF: (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities that purchased the publicly traded common stock of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. between February 23, 2022 and May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that the litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of: (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $20,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on August 28, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Kenly Kiya Kato at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, George E. Brown, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 3470 12th Street, 3rd Floor, Courtroom 3, Riverside, CA 92501, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and in the Notice should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.LiveNationSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at Live Nation Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173080, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-877-411-5027. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or received no later than September 20, 2025. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received by, or postmarked no later than, August 7, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court no later than August 7, 2025, and served on Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received by, or postmarked no later than, August 7, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Live Nation Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173080 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Toll-free Telephone: 877-411-5027 Email: info@LiveNationSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq. Garth Spencer, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Email: settlements@glancylaw.com -and/or- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Phillip Kim, Esq. Joshua Baker, Esq. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com Email: jbaker@rosenlegal.com By Order of the Court LOUD AUDIO: Beven Sues Over Deceitful Business Practice ------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Beven, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOUD AUDIO, LLC d/b/a MACKIE, Case No. 2:25-cv-04352 (C.D. Cal., May 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("SBA"), and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), as a result of the Defendant's unlawful and deceitful business practice. The Defendant manufactures consumer goods which are advertised and accompanied by express warranties. The SBA explicitly requires that "a manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller shall not make an express warranty with respect to a consumer good that commences earlier than the date of delivery of the good." However, Defendant commences their express warranties on the date of purchase, not on the date of delivery, as required by the SBA. As a result of this unlawful and deceitful business practice, consumers who receive their goods after the date of purchase, such as online shoppers, do not receive the full benefit of their warranty. These consumers are short-changed the full value of their warranties. Furthermore, Defendant unfairly benefits by saving themselves the added time and expense that would be required to properly track and administer its warranties were they to commence on the date of delivery, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a purchaser of Defendant's Mackie CR3-XBT-3" Creative Reference Multimedia Monitors. The Defendant engaged in the business of marketing, supplying, and selling its products--including the products purchased by Plaintiff and the public--directly and through a system of marketers, retailers, and distributors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. Jonathan Gil, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ryan@kazlg.com jonathan@kazlg.com - and - Adib Assassi, Esq. Veronica Cruz, Esq. ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM, PC 1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (800) 500-0301 Fascimile: (800) 500-0301 Email: adib@aclegalteam.com veronica@aclegalteam.com LOUD AUDIO: Shortchanged Value of Express Warranties, Beven Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW BEVEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOUD AUDIO, LLC d/b/a MACKIE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04352 (C.D. Cal., May 14, 2025) seeks to secure redress for Defendant's violations of the California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the California's Unfair Competition Law. The Defendant manufactures consumer goods which are advertised and accompanied by express warranties. The Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act explicitly requires that "a manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller shall not make an express warranty with respect to a consumer good that commences earlier than the date of delivery of the good." However, the Defendant commences their express warranties on the date of purchase, not on the date of delivery, as required by the SBA. As a result of this unlawful and deceitful business practice, Plaintiff and other consumers who receive their goods after the date of purchase, such as online shoppers, do not receive the full benefit of their warranty. These consumers are short-changed the full value of their warranties. Furthermore, the Defendant unfairly benefits by saving themselves the added time and expense that would be required to properly track and administer its warranties were they to commence on the date of delivery, says the suit. Loud Audio, LLC, d/b/a MACKIE, is a professional audio company based in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. Jonathan Gil, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com jonathan@kazlg.com - and - Adib Assassi, Esq. Veronica Cruz, Esq. ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM, PC 1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (800) 500-0301 Fascimile: (800) 500-0301 E-mail: adib@aclegalteam.com veronica@aclegalteam.com LOUIE'S RESTAURANT: Aquino Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Aquino and Henry Argudo, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. LOUIE'S RESTAURANT OPERATING LLC, d/b/a LOUIE'S PRIME STEAK AND SEAFOOD, and GENNARO JOSEPH SBARRO, Case No. 2:25-cv-03183 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper wages. The Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. The Defendants regularly required Plaintiffs to work off the clock. Specifically, Defendants required Plaintiffs to clock out of his shifts and then continue working. As a result, Plaintiffs were not paid at all for many of his hours worked, including both regular and overtime hours. In addition, for the hours that Plaintiffs were paid, they were paid New York's "food service" minimum wage, which is lower than the full minimum wage, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Louie's as a server/bartender. Louie's Restaurant Operating LLC is a New York limited liability company that owns and operates Louie's Prime Steak and Seafood restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 LOWE'S HOME: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNICE CARRILLO, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01215-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered a scheduling order as follows: The parties shall serve their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than June 23, 2025, which is a date proposed by the parties. Any motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be filed by no later than Sept. 15, 2025, a date proposed by plaintiff. Any opposition to that motion shall be filed by no later than Oct. 15, 2025, a date proposed by the plaintiff. Any reply to that opposition shall be filed by no later than Nov. 17, 2025, a date proposed by the plaintiff. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than June 12, 2026. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than Sept. 18, 2026. All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before Oct. 30, 2026 The final pretrial conference is set for April 12, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. A jury trial is set for June 15, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. Lowe's retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hcrEFt at no extra charge.[CC] LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Upperco, et al., v. Lucas County Board Of Commissioners, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01283 (N.D. Ohio, Filed June 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge James R. Knepp II entered an order amending class certification deadlines as follows: -- Class certification cut-off dates: Plaintiffs' motion by: June 30, 2025 Opposition by: Aug. 1. 2025. Reply by: Aig. 15, 2025. -- The remainder of the case management deadlines remain as previously-set by the Court. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Job Discrimination (Employment).[CC] LUCERO AG: Motion to Compel Discovery Responses Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel and request for attorney fees in the case captioned as AZUCENA ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUCERO AG SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Azucena Ortiz, Gustavo Meza, and Dominga Espinoza filed this putative class action on Sept. 5, 2023, mostly alleging violations of California state labor laws. Lucero Ag Services, Inc. and Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio ("the Lucero Defendants") participated in the litigation early in this case; e.g., they filed an answer to the amended complaint and were represented by counsel for some discovery. However, on Nov. 15, 2024, the Court granted their counsel's motion to withdraw from the case, based, in part, on their failure to communicate with counsel. Before their counsel withdrew, the Court held an informal discovery conference on June 10, 2024, regarding the parties' dispute as to the scope of class discovery. The Court directed the parties to confer further, and permitted Plaintiffs to file a discovery motion if the parties could not resolve their dispute. Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel discovery responses on Jan. 31, 2025, which concerns discovery related to class certification. More specifically, Plaintiffs move to compel: Request for Production Nos. 1-23, and 26, including information related to timekeeping and payroll data for all putative class members, and the identities and contact information for same. Plaintiffs also request $5,111 in attorney fees for filing the motion. The Lucero Defendants did not respond to the motion or appear at the hearing. Plaintiffs' motion to compel states that the Lucero Defendants were served with requests for production on Feb. 16, 2024, including information related to native electronic timekeeping, payroll, and class contact information. While Defendant ultimately provided some responses after the parties informally conferred, it failed to provide all the information requested. Upon review of the motion to compel, the Court will grant it as to Defendant Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio. Notably, this Defendant has filed no opposition to the motion, and based on Plaintiffs' representations, has failed to provide responses to requests for production that appear relevant to precertification discovery. However, as to Defendant Lucero Ag Services, Inc., the Court will deny the motion to compel. Importantly, since the filing of this motion, the Clerk of Court has entered a default against this Defendant and struck its answer. The Court will grant the motion for attorney fees as to Defendant Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio. Notably, the Court has granted the motion to compel as to this Defendant. He had the opportunity to oppose the motion and attend the hearing but failed to do so. Plaintiffs attempted to confer in good faith to obtain the discovery before filing the motion. And this Defendant has offered no justification for the failure to provide discovery and there appears to be no circumstances making an award unjust. As for the hours worked, Attorney Hill fails to itemize how the 9.5 hours were spent. And importantly, the Court sees no reason to award tasks like reviewing discovery or conferring with opposing counsel (presumably about discovery), which are tasks that are not usually directly related to a motion to compel itself, and which counsel would be expected to do regardless in cases where no motion to compel was filed. Thus, the Court believes it fitting to cut the requested hours in half to 4.75 to eliminate time not sufficiently related to the motion to compel filing. The Court finds the appropriate lodestar award to be $950 ($200 per hour x 4.75 hours), and will grant the request for attorney fees in part. The Court ordered as follows: a. Defendant Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio is ordered to provide further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1-23, and 26 within 45 days of the entry of this order. b. Plaintiffs are awarded $950 in attorney fees from only Defendant Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rQcA1B from PacerMonitor.com. LUXURY BATH OF TAMPA: Miller Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luxury Bath of Tampa Bay LLC. The case is styled as Crystal Miller, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Luxury Bath of Tampa Bay LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-01480 (M.D. Fla., June 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Luxury Bath of Tampa Bay LLC -- https://www.luxurybath.com/ -- is qualified as a licensed plumbing company, which allows us to perform virtually all work without using sub contractors.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com MANAGED CARE: Crowe Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA CROWE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, MCNA INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, and HEALTHPLEX, INC., Case No. 0:23-cv-61065-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the class under Rule 23(b)( 3) for damages and under Rule 23(b)( 2) for injunctive and declaratory relief. -- appointing them as class representatives and Proposed Class Counsel as Class Counsel. Managed provides dental plans. The Company offers medicare, long term, and commercial plans. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qS7Z6H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. Steven P. Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com - and - Peter Prieto, Esq. Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq. Dayron Silverio, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 500 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com mweinshall@podhurst.com dsilverio@podhurst.com - and - Stephanie A. Casey, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 E-mail: scasey@colson.com MARCO A. RUBIO: Court Narrows Claims in SIV Applicants' Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Count III of the complaint in the case captioned as AFGHAN AND IRAQI ALLIES UNDER SERIOUS THREAT BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THE UNITED STATES, ON THEIR OWN AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. MARCO A. RUBIO, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01388-TSC-MAU (D.C.). Plaintiffs -- a class of Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants whose applications have been pending for more than nine months -- brought this class action to compel Defendants -- the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and officials at those agencies -- to process and adjudicate their SIV applications in accordance with Congress's instructions. Defendants have moved to dismiss Count III for relief under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1361, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts five claims -- Counts I and II seek declaratory and injunctive relief for unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act; Count III seeks a writ of mandamus to compel adjudication of their SIV applications under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1361; and Counts IV and V seek appointment of SIV coordinators under the APA and Mandamus Act. The Court finds Plaintiffs' mandamus claim cannot proceed because the APA provides an adequate alternative remedy. Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief under Section 706(1) of the APA in Count II and mandamus relief in Count III both seek to compel Defendants to adjudicate their SIV applications. According to the Court, because Plaintiffs can -- and in fact have -- obtained relief under the APA, mandamus relief is not available. Because the Court granted relief under the APA, it lacks jurisdiction to issue mandamus relief. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants' motion and dismiss Count III without prejudice. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8w3tfz from PacerMonitor.com. MARCO ANTONIO: 6330 Pacific Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marco Antonio Calzadilla. The case is styled as 6330 Pacific Arcade LLC, Jeff Kern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marco Antonio Calzadilla, Case No. 25STCV16564 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (Not Unlawful Detainer or Wrongful Eviction) (General Jurisdiction)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Kim, Esq. WCD LAW GROUP, APC 466 Foothill Blvd., #444 La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011 Phone: 213-341-0323 Email: andrew@wcdlawgroup.com MAXEY ENERGY: Court Tosses Gustin Lawsuit Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jason Pulliam of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed without prejudice the amended complaint in the case captioned as CHARLES GUSTIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiff, v. MAXEY ENERGY COMPANY, MAXE-STORES, INC., MAX-EENTERPRISES, INC., MAX-CASH EXPRESS STORES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-CV-00757-JKP (W.D. Tex.). Because Plaintiff Charles Gustin's Amended Complaint does not clearly demonstrate the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court ordered Gustin to show cause, by May 27, 2025, why the Court should not dismiss his Amended Complaint sua sponte. As discussed in the Court's Show Cause Order, neither Gustin's Complaint nor Amended Complaint address the Court's jurisdiction. Gustin's Civil Cover Sheet, however, lists the basis of jurisdiction as "Diversity." As such, Gustin failed to address the citizenship of Defendants Maxey Energy Company, Max-E-Stores Inc., Max-E-Enterprises Inc., and Max-Cash Express Stores Inc.'s in Section III of the Civil Covert Sheet. Thus, Gustin's Amended Complaint indicates complete diversity between the named parties is lacking, the Court finds. Gustin and Defendants appear to all be Texas citizens, defeating even the minimal diversity requirement under the expanded jurisdiction provided for federal courts in the Class Action Fairness Act. In addition, Gustin does not allege or contemplate the putative class includes any potential plaintiff not residing in Texas. Therefore, even though Plaintiffs have not yet moved for Rule 23 certification, the Court holds that Plaintiffs have not met the requirements of CAFA. The Court is constrained to find that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to maintain this action. In the absence of any apparent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, dismissal is required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YjcJOX from PacerMonitor.com. MCKINLEY PACKAGING: Milanes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinley Packaging LA Company. The case is styled as Jesus Jorge Milanes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. McKinley Packaging LA Company, Case No. 25STCV12970 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." McKinley -- https://mckinleypackaging.com/ -- specializes in sustainable packaging solutions, including corrugated boxes and multi-layer paper sacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Substances, Arndt Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Theodore Arndt, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03672-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Arndt is a resident and citizen of Tea, South Dakota. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, alleges the suit. The Arndt case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Faces Lambert Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure --------------------------------------------------------- Nilia Lambert, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; TECHNOLOGIES, INC; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04035-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025) is an action for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Lambert is a resident and citizen of New York, New York. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease, as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products, alleges the suit. The Lambert case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 E-mail: jshenkar@bernllp.com MDL 2873: Faces Schryer Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure --------------------------------------------------------- Mark Schryer, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; TECHNOLOGIES, INC; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04034-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025) is an action for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Schryer is a resident and citizen of Ruffin, North Carolina. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease, and high cholesterol, as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products, alleges the suit. The Schryer case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 E-mail: jshenkar@bernllp.com MDL 2873: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Substances, Hawthorne Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marquan Hawthorne, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; TECHNOLOGIES, INC; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04025-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025) is an action for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Hawthorne is a resident and citizen of Federal Way, Washington. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease and high cholesterol, as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products, alleges the suit. The Hawthorne case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (803) 315-3357 Facsimile: (610) 941-9880 E-mail: jshenkar@bernllp.com MDL 2873: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Substances, Shall Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Shall, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03681-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Shall is a resident and citizen of Sharon, Pennsylvania. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, alleges the suit. The Shall case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Hall Files Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Substances ----------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Hall, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03676-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Hall is a resident and citizen of Sacred Hall, Minnesota. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, alleges the suit. The Hall case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Keeley Sues Over Toxic Chemical Exposure -------------------------------------------------- Terry Keeley, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03677-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Keeley is a resident and citizen of Midland, Michigan. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, alleges the suit. The Keeley case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Taylor Seeks Damages from Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------------- Tory Taylor, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03684-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Taylor is a resident and citizen of Apopka, Florida. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, alleges the suit. The Taylor case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MEGAMART CA: Perez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Uvaldo Ramirez Perez and David Escalante-Martinez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees v. MEGAMART CA, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 1, 2025), is brought against the violation of California Labor Codes and the California Business & Professions Codes and the (Private Attorneys General Act as a result of the Defendant failure to pay proper compensation. The Defendant failed to pay regular and overtime wages, failed to provide compliant meal periods or pay premium compensation, failed to provide compliant rest periods or pay premium compensation, failed to pay wages timely upon termination, failed to pay wages timely during employment, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse necessary business-related expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee from approximately September 2022 to March 2024. MEGAMART CA, INC. was and is a California corporation an employer that is engaged in interstate commerce and whose employees are engaged throughout this county and in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald H. Bae, Esq. Karen L. Wallace, Esq. Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq. Carson M. Turner, Esq. AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP A Professional Law Corporation 1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91106 Phone: (213) 674-6080 Facsimile: (213) 674-6081 Email: rbae@AequitasLegalGroup.com kwallace@AequitasLegalGroup.com oscharrer@AequitasLegalGroup.com cturner@AequitasLegalGroup.com MEYER LOGISTICS: Samano Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jairo R. Mercado Samano, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEYER LOGISTICS, INC., an Indiana corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2508949 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05131. The Plaintiff's State Court Action asserts causes of action for: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; all in violation of Cal. Labor Codes and the Cal. Business and Professions Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Marquis, Esq. Nicole M. Clowdsley, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 1010 B Street, Suite 400 San Rafael, CA 94901 Phone: 415.394.9500 Facsimile: 833.317.0293 Email: jmarquis@fmglaw.com nclowdsley@fmglaw.com MIDEA AMERICA: Catalano Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midea America Corp. The case is styled as Wayne Catalano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midea America Corp., Case No. 7:25-cv-04850 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Midea America Corp. -- https://www.midea.com/ -- is the US subsidiary of Midea Group, one of the world's largest and most trusted home appliance companies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip John Furia, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com MIDWEST GERIATRIC: Norton Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Jane Norton, individually and for others similarly situated v. MIDWEST GERIATRIC MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a MGM HEALTHCARE, Case No. 4:25-cv-00827 (E.D. Mo., June 5, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. Like the other Patient Care Employees, The Plaintiff regularly works more than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant does not pay them at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration—for hours worked after 40 in a week. Instead, the Defendant pays The Plaintiff and the other Patient Care Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including sign on bonuses, retention bonuses, critical need/crisis bonuses, and performance bonuses, that it fails to include in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (MGM Healthcare's "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA by depriving The Plaintiff and the other Patient Care Employees of overtime wages at the required rate--based on all remuneration--for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Registered Nurse (RN) in Bettendorf, Iowa. MGM operates independent living facilities, long-term care facilities, assisted living facilities, and skilled nursing facilities across Iowa, Missouri, and Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Facsimile: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com MOVE INC: Bid to Seal Class Docs Granted in Faucett Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Priestley Faucett v. Move, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-04948-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II, entered an order granting the Application to Seal and directing that the following information be redacted. Information to be redacted Citation Memorandum in Support of the Plaintiff's Page 1, Lines 8–9 renewed motion for class certification Page 3, Line 6 Page 4, Line 11 Page 7, Line 7 Page 11, Lines 16–17 The Court also reminds the parties of their obligation to submit word processing file versions of Proposed Orders directly to chambers. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 5-4.4.2. Move is a real estate listing company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ynLLgR at no extra charge.[CC] MOVE INC: Faucett Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIESTLEY FAUCETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MOVE, INC. d/b/a REALTOR.COM, Case No. 2:22-cv-04948-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Aug. 4, 2025, will move for class certification before the Honorable Otis D. Wright, II. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order as follows: (1) certifying the proposed Classes under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3); (2) appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative of the certified Classes; (3) appointing as Class Counsel lawyers from the firms of Gold Law, PA, Shamis & Gentile, P.A., and Tycko & Zavareei LLP; (4) directing the Parties to jointly submit a proposed Notice Plan within 60 days of the Court's Order granting this Motion; and (5) granting all other further relief that the Court deems equitable and just. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3): Prerecorded Voice Class: "All persons within the United States who, (1) between Sept. 12, 2018, and an Order granting class certification, (2) received a call or voicemail using an artificial or prerecorded voice, (3) from the Defendant or anyone acting on Defendant's behalf, (4) to said person's cellular telephone number, (5) without emergency purpose, and (5) without their prior express written consent to receive prerecorded calls from the Defendant, (6) where the Defendant obtained such person's telephone number from REI Network, Realty Store, or Yardi." The Plaintiff also seeks certification of the following Subclass under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3): National DNC Subclass: "All members of the Prerecorded Voice Class who, between Sept. 12, 2018, and an Order granting class certification, (1) received two or more calls or voicemails (2) within any 12-month period (3) by or on behalf of the Defendant; (4) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services; (4) where the person’s telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days." The Defendant is an online real estate company that operates realtor.com, a website that solicits real estate buyers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FIWNPW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Gemma Seidita, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 073-0950 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com gseidita@tzlegal.com - and – Christopher Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2d Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (305) 900-4653 E-mail: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com - and – Andrew Shamis, Esq. Garrett Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Strike Class Action Claims Tossed as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph Cockrell v. Navient Corporation et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-01780-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Selna entered an order: -- granting the motion to dismiss without leave to amend, and -- denying as moot the motion to strike class action allegations. The Court previously granted Cockrell leave to amend to disentangle his state law claims from the express preemption statutes. The Court now finds that Cockrell's claims, at their core, are inextricably tied to HEA violations that are expressly preempted by section 1098g or, in the alternative, impliedly preempted. Thus, amendment would be futile, and the motion is granted without leave to amend. Because the Court grants the motion to dismiss on all claims, the motion to strike class allegations, the motion to dismiss the request injunctive relief, and the motion to dismiss punitive damages are moot. Because Cockrell's claims are barred by section 1098g, the Court will not analyze whether the SAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Furthermore, the Court finds it unnecessary to take judicial notice of the requested documents because the Court did not rely on these documents in concluding that Cockrell’s claims are preempted and barred as an indirect private action. Accordingly, the Court denies the request for judicial notice. Navient is an American financial services company and former student loan servicer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fiOvGH at no extra charge.[CC] NECTAR BRAND: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nectar Brand LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-02346 (D. Minn., June 5, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.nectarsleep.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers sleep products and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, mattresses, bed frames, bedding, bedroom sets, pillows and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com NESTLE WATERS: Court Junks Cross-Bids for Reconsideration --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK PATANE, et al., v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381-VDO (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Vernon Oliver entered an order denying the parties' cross-motions for reconsideration. The parties to this nearly eight-year-old action cannot be granted infinite opportunities to raise new arguments that should have been raised earlier in the action: Like all good things, this too must come to an end. See Geoffrey Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde (circa 1380). Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have forfeited the argument they now raise and denies their motion for clarification or reconsideration. The Court concludes that Nestlé was well aware of the general allegation and that it was but a short jump for Nestlé to acknowledge that its contracts with consumers were implicated through this theory. The Court, therefore, rejects the argument that the Russell Letter needed to address the breach-of-contract claim more specifically, and it concludes that the letter put Nestlé on notice of the core of Plaintiffs’ claims. But the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that Nestlé could sit on its hands through nearly eight years of litigation before raising the argument that it has been denied the opportunity to pursue settlement before incurring substantial litigation costs. 4 The plaintiffs allege that bottled water they purchased from the Defendant was not "spring water" as defined by the standards of identity as incorporated into the law of various states. Put more simply, they allege that Nestle's "Poland Spring Water' (PSW) is not actually "spring water," despite branding and advertising claiming as much. Over nearly eight years, the action has seen two motions to dismiss and three motions for summary judgment.1 The third summary judgment motion, the most recent dispositive motion, was resolved by the Court (Meyer, J.) on December 30, 2024. Nestle produces and distributes bottled water. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5hTfyL at no extra charge.[CC] NEW ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alves Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- PAULO SERGIO GOMES DOS SANTOS ALVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW ENGLAND TREE MASTERS, INC. and HIGH QUALITY LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11522 (D. Mass., May 28, 2025) seeks compensatory and punitive damages, counsel fees and costs, and other equitable relief arising out of violations of the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act, the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. In or around September or October 2021, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a laborer where he earned approximately $23 an hour. Plaintiff routinely worked 50 to 80 hours per week. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the correct overtime premium for the hours worked in excess of 40 per week. In addition, the Defendants have not paid Plaintiff his final paycheck. Instead, Defendants issued a stop payment on the last check they provided to the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Boxborough, MA, New England Tree Masters, Inc. provides tree and landscaping services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olayiwola O. Oduyingbo, Esq. Ana Barros, Esq. ODU LAW FIRM, LLC 888 Reservoir Avenue, Floor 2 Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 209-2029 Facsimile: (401) 217-2299 E-mail: abarros@odulawfirm.com Odu@odulawfirm.com NIKITA BAKER: Petitioners-Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.N.N. and V.R.G, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NIKITA BAKER, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01613-JRR (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class action and certification of the following Class: "All persons who are now or in the future will be detained in the Hold Rooms at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Baltimore Field Office." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W5cXNb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome A Murphy, Esq. Jared A. Levine, Esq. Daniella Schmidt, Esq. Luke Taeschler, Esq. Emily Werkmann, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 624-2895 E-mail: JMurphy@crowell.com JLevine@crowell.com DSchmidt@crowell.com LTaeschler@crowell.com Ewerkmann@crowell.com - and - Ian Austin Rose, Esq. Daniel Melo, Esq. Amelia Dagen, Esq. AMICA CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 788-2509 E-mail: Austin.rose@amicacenter.org Dan.melo@amicacenter.org Amelia@amicacenter.org - and - Sirine Shebaya, Esq. Matthew Vogel, Esq. Yulie Landan, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Rd. NW Suite 175 #896645 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 656-4788 E-mail: sirine@nipnlg.org matt@nipnlg.org yulie@nipnlg.org NORLITE LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Amended to Dec. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hill, et al., v. Norlite, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00439 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 16, 2021), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth C. Coombe entered an order amending class certification deadlines as follows: -- Fact Discovery due by: July 14, 2025 -- The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure July 30, 2025 Deadline is: -- The Defendants Expert Disclosure Sept. 15. 2025 Deadline is: -- Deadline for completion of Sept. 30. 2025 mediation is: -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Oct. 30, 2025 Deadline is: -- Expert Deposition Deadline is: Oct. 30, 2025 -- Class Certification Motion due by: Dec. 1, 2025 The nature of suit states Diversity-Torts to Land. Norlite is a manufactured lightweight, porous ceramic material produced by expanding and vitrifying select shale in a rotary kiln. The Defendant manufactures lightweight aggregate materials.[CC] NORTHEAST WORK: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave To File SAC ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID OBERMEIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NORTHEAST WORK & SAFETY BOATS, LLC; JACK CASEY; and LINDA CASEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00046-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs shall file the second amended complaint as a standalone docket filing by June 13, 2025. The Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint by June 27, 2025. Finally, Defendants have failed to show that granting leave to amend would prejudice them in any way. In fact, Defendants did not even attempt to argue that they would be prejudiced by permitting this amendment, in response to Plaintiffs' assertions to the contrary. The Court therefore cannot conclude Defendants would be prejudiced in any way. In this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) wage and hour collective action, Plaintiff David Obermeier and the current opt-in Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated that Northeast, Jack Casey, and Linda Casey failed to pay required overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and failed to pay prevailing minimum wages as required by New Jersey and Pennsylvania law. The FLSA collective was conditionally certified on March 19, 2024. Northeast is a Connecticut limited liability company that functions as a subcontractor, providing safety and inspection crews and work boats to general contractors who work on publicly-funded bridge inspection, construction, and repair projects. A copy of the Court's ruling dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Lr3qi at no extra charge.[CC] OOMA CANADA: Continues to Defend Chiu Trademarks Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Ooma Canada Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending May 3, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Chiu trademarks and competition class suit in the Federal Court of Canada. On February 3, 2021, plaintiff Fiona Chiu filed a class action complaint against the Company and Ooma Canada Inc. in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging violations of Canada's Trademarks Act and Competition Act. The complaint seeks monetary and other damages and/or injunctive relief enjoining the Company from describing and marketing its Basic Home Phone using the word "free" or otherwise representing that it is free. On November 9, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada removed Ms. Chiu and substituted John Zanin as the new plaintiff in the proceeding. In connection with the substitution of Mr. Zanin as the new plaintiff, the Federal Court of Canada deemed the proceeding as having commenced on November 8, 2021 instead of February 3, 2021. In January 2022, the Federal Court of Canada heard arguments from counsel representing each of the Company and Mr. Zanin regarding jurisdiction and class action certification issues. In January 2025, the Federal Court of Canada ruled in favor of the Company by denying class action certification and compelling individual arbitration in California; however, plaintiff's counsel has since filed an appeal of certain portions of the judgment in Canada and filed a related complaint in California seeking a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement in the Company's terms of services is invalid and unenforceable. The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against these complaints. Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any reasonably possible loss resulting from these matters is not estimable. Ooma, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, "Ooma" or the "Company") provides leading communications services and related technologies for businesses and consumers, delivered from its smart SaaS and unified communications platforms. The Company is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. OTP PIZZA: Bonilla and Bonilla Seek Proper Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- JOSE BONILLA and MARTIR BONILLA, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OTP PIZZA CORP. d/b/a OLD TOWN PIZZA, OLD TOWN PIZZA INC. d/b/a OLD TOWN PIZZA, JOSEPH DONOFRIO, and DENNIS DONOFRIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02971 (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cooks and were required to perform non-exempt duties for the Defendants including preparing and cooking food, cleaning the kitchen area, and washing dishes. Allegedly, throughout Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendants failed to pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Among other things, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements along with their pay, that depicted their total hours worked and total wages earned, including the correct amount of overtime hours worked, gross wages, net wages and deductions. Headquartered in Port Jefferson Station, NY, OTP Pizza Corp. owns and operates a restaurant in Suffolk County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Bid to Strike Exhibits in Osborne Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osborne, et al., v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00439 (S.D. Ala., Filed Nov. 26, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey U. Beaverstock entered an order denying motion to strike sections II,C. & III.A. & Exhibits A, B, C, & D in Plaintiffs' Reply or in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to Submit a Sur-Reply in Response to New Issues. The Court is aware of the issues raised and additional briefing is not necessary in order for the Court to consider the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Outokumpu manufactures steel products. The Company offers stainless grades, forms, coils, plates, sheets, and surface finishes.[CC] P.W. STEPHENS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against P.W. Stephens Environmental, Inc. The case is styled as Flabio Hernandez, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. P.W. Stephens Environmental, Inc., Case No. 25CV011646 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." PW Stephens -- https://pwsei.com/ -- is a fully licensed and certified abatement contractor specializing in the removal of asbestos, lead, mold and other biological contaminants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Jimenez, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP 149 Sheldon St. El Segundo, CA 90245-3916 Phone: 424-290-3095 Fax: 866-264-7880 Email: jeffrey@protectionlawgroup.com PA AMERICAN LIFE: Critchlow Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jason Critchlow, and others similarly situated v. Philadelphia American Life Insurance Company, Case No. 8:25-cv-00453 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on June 5, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-02592 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Philadelphia American Life offers Fixed Benefit health plans in 33 states.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Theodore Anthony Corless, Esq. CORLESS LAW GROUP 12031 Brewster Drive Tampa, FL 33626 Phone: (813) 318-1535 Fax: (813) 318-1535 - and - Kyle Mathew Hyman, Esq. COHEN LAW GROUP 350 North Lake Destiny, Suite 300 Maitland, FL 32751 Phone: (407) 478-4878 Fax: (407) 478-0204 The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 649-4000 Fax: (407) 841-0168 - and - Michelle R. Gomez, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Fax: (303) 861-7805 PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY: Montiel Files Suit in D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. The case is styled as Mayenssi Montiel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01771-NRN (D. Colo. June 5, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994. Parking Revenue Recovery Services -- https://prrsparking.com/ -- has been providing superior parking enforcement and collection services to the parking industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM 10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (800) 615-4946 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: ecfnotices@sanfordlawfirm.com PETROGAS FLORIDA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. PETROGAS FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A VALERO, Case No. 1:25-cv-22566-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although well over 32 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial property has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and its tenants therein, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff desires to visit the Commercial Property and Gas Station Business located therein, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the commercial property, but to assure himself that the commercial property is in compliance with the ADA, so that he and others similarly situated will has full and equal enjoyment of the commercial property without fear of discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. WAREHOMES 5007, LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com PHONE LCD: Bilir Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARUK BILIR, OZKAN KARAVELIOGLU, ILHAN GOKSU on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. PHONE LCD PARTS LLC (d/b/a "Phone LCD Parts"), ONDER SAYAR, ONUR OZBINAR, IHSAN ORUC and KUBILAY HAN BASCAVUS, Case No. 2:23-cv-13643-ES-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs on July 21, 2025, will move the Court for an Order: 1. Granting conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), consisting of: "all non-exempt employees employed by Defendants from Aug. 31, 2017 through the close of the opt-in period"; 2. Directing the Defendants to produce a list of all potential collective members, including their names, job titles, and contact information in excel format; 3. Authorizing the dissemination of Court-approved notice in both English and Turkish to the proposed collective by regular mail, email, text message, WhatsApp, and posting in a conspicuous workplace location; 4. Approving a ninety-day opt-in period, including a reminder notice to be sent halfway through the period; 5. Equitably tolling the statute of limitations for all potential opt-in plaintiffs; and 6. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Phone provides wholesale cell phone, LCD, and mobile device replacement parts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eZtczD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 E-mail: CTucker@Saccofillas.com PLUTO ACQUISITION: Class Settlement in McDowell Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIDAL MCDOWELL, v. PLUTO ACQUISITION OPCO, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-12827-RJW-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. White entered an order granting joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement and notice of settlement case: The Court finds the Injunctive Relief Class satisfies the requirement of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and therefore certifies the Injunctive Relief Class for settlement purposes. Accordingly, the Court finds the K-Notice Payment Class satisfies the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and certifies the K-Notice Payment Class for settlement purposes. The Court finds the $5,000.00 compensation provided to Plaintiff for serving the class to be reasonable. The Court finds Marc R. Edelman, Esq. and his firm, Morgan & Morgan P.A., and Craig C. Marchiando, and his firm, Consumer Litigation Associates, PLLC, will adequately represent the Settlement Classes. Finally, the Court sets this case for hearing for final approval of the settlement on Monday, October 20, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. and instructs the Parties to include this hearing date, time and location in the Notice to be sent pursuant to the notice plan. On April 1, 2025, the Parties notified the Court a settlement had been reached, pending completion of a comprehensive settlement agreement. On May 16, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. In accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement, the parties seek certification, for settlement purposes, of two classes, an Injunctive Relief Class and a K-Notice Payment Class. ("Settlement Classes."). The Injunctive Relief Class, for which the parties seek certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), is defined as: "All employees and job applicants in the United States who were the subject of a consumer report furnished by PeopleFacts for employment purposes that was provided without the user's written certification of compliance with 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2) and 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3), within five years of the filing of this lawsuit through the date of preliminary approval in this action." The K-Notice Payment Class, for which the parties seek certification pursuant to Rule (b)(3)23, is defined as: "All consumers in the United States who were the subject of a consumer report furnished by PeopleFacts that included criminal history entries of the grade of misdemeanor or higher, that were not provided notice at the time such information was being reported to the user of the consumer report, within two years of the filing of this lawsuit through the date of preliminary approval in this action." Pluto provides background screening services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UMZa0s at no extra charge.[CC] POPULUS FINANCIAL: Hanson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Populus Financial Group, Inc. The case is styled as Zakrey Hanson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Populus Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 25CV121407 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 1, 2025). The case type is stated "Other Employment Complaint Case." Populus Financial Group -- https://www.populusfinancial.com/ -- offers a range of financial products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd. Fl. 12 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1176 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com PRESTIGE CLAIMS: Heath Sues Over Worker Misclassification --------------------------------------------------------- MARY HEATH, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE CLAIMS SERVICE, LLC and ALLCAT CLAIMS SERVICE, LLC Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00588 (W.D. Tex., May 28, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and Class Members worked for Defendants as cat adjusters for over 40 hours a week but, because the Defendants misclassified them as independent contractors, they were not paid an overtime premium for any hours worked over 40 in a week. Prestige Claims Service, LLC provides outsourced claim services to insurance companies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly E. Cook, Esq, Warren A. Berlanga, Esq. 1415 North Loop West, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77008 Telephone: (713) 236-8330 Facsimile: (713) 863-8502 E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com wberlanga@wylycooklaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dean et al. Sue Over Alleged Greenwashing ----------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA DEAN, CAROLE GRANT, and LATRONYA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05977 (N.D. Ill., May 28, 2025) accuses the Defendant of greenwashing by misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices involved in the manufacturing of its Charmin Toilet Paper and Puffs Tissue brands. According to the complaint, the Defendant devotes considerable resources to maintaining and disseminating to the public an umbrella marketing campaign entitled Keep Forests as Forests, which creates an overall impression to consumers that Defendant is not only committed to, but also working meaningfully toward, environmental sustainability. On the contrary, Defendant has been complicit in the clearcutting of untouched ancient primary forests in order to sell billions of dollars of single-use tissue products. Yet, the Defendant continues to reassure its consumers with false claims that it is committed to protecting, regrowing, and restoring these unique forests. Moreover, Defendant's unfair, unlawful, and deceptive conduct in manufacturing, marketing, and selling its tissue products as environmentally beneficial has caused Plaintiffs and other consumers out-of-pocket losses. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now assert claims for fraud by concealment, and for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. Procter & Gamble Company is an American consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, OH. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 North Cityfront Plaza, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: (708) 628-4950 E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: DuPont Sues Over Deceptive Product Marketing -------------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE DUPONT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02260-ECT-DLM (D. Minn., May 28, 2025) accuses the Defendant of misleading Plaintiff and its other consumers regarding the environmental practices involved in the manufacturing and production of its Charmin Toilet Paper and Puffs Tissue brands. According to the complaint, the Defendant devotes considerable resources to maintaining and disseminating to the public an umbrella marketing campaign entitled Keep Forests as Forests, which creates an overall impression to consumers that Defendant is not only committed to, but also working meaningfully toward, environmental sustainability. On the contrary, Defendant has been complicit in the clearcutting of untouched ancient primary forests in order to sell billions of dollars of single-use tissue products. Yet, the Defendant continues to reassure its consumers with false claims that it is committed to protecting, regrowing, and restoring these unique forests. Moreover, Defendant’s unfair, unlawful, and deceptive conduct in manufacturing, marketing, and selling its tissue products as environmentally beneficial has caused Plaintiff and other consumers out-of-pocket losses. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for fraudulent concealment, the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act, the Minnesota Prevention of Fraud Act, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Procter & Gamble Company is an American consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, OH. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Krista K. Freier, Esq. Catherine A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 1650 W. 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 E-mail: rpeterson@4-justice.com kfreier@4-justice.com cpeterson@4-justice.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Giarrizzo and Meuse Sue Over False Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA GIARRIZZO and CYNTHIA MEUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11524 (D. Mass., May 28, 2025) alleges the Defendant of greenwashing in connection with its Charmin Toilet Paper and Puffs Tissue brands. Allegedly, Procter & Gamble Company has been sourcing the wood pulp used in the said products from the Canadian boreal forest, one of the last large primary forests left on Earth and represents one of the planet's most important biological ecosystems. However, the Defendant has sourced these products via devastating industrial harvesting practices that are completely at odds with the environmental stewardship claims Defendant makes to consumers at point-of-sale and elsewhere. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring this class action and assert claims for fraud concealment and for violations of the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 93(A) and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Procter & Gamble Company is an American consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, OH. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abbye K. Ognibene, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Fl. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: abbyeo@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Catherine Y.N. Gannon, Esq. Shelby R. Smith, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com catherineg@hbsslaw.com shelby@hbsslaw.com PRODRIVERS WEST: Court Dismisses All Claims in Cortes FAC --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN CORTES, v. PRODRIVERS WEST, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02451-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order granting the Defendant's moves to dismiss all claims in the first amended complaint (FAC) under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to dismiss or strike the class allegations. The Plaintiff Benjamin Cortes brings this putative class action against his former employer, Defendant ProDrivers West, Inc., alleging several violations of the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Because the meal and rest break claims are preempted, they are dismissed with prejudice. At the hearing, the Plaintiff represented that he could add specific allegations to cure the deficiencies as to the remaining claims. Based on those representations, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC). However, Plaintiff should not expect another opportunity to amend to add allegations that could have been included in the SAC. The Plaintiff shall file his SAC by June 11, 2025. The Defendant shall file its response to the SAC by June 20, 2025. If the Defendant files a further Rule 12 motion, it shall notice the motion for hearing on July 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. Any opposition shall be filed by June 27, and any reply shall be filed by July 7. The Court also continues the hearing on the pending motion to deny class certification to July 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. The prior briefing deadlines for that motion, however, remain in place. The Plaintiff shall file his opposition by June 6, 2025. Any reply shall be filed by June 13, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges claims for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) waiting time penalties; (5) wage statement violations; (6) failure to indemnify for necessary expenses; and (7) violation of the UCL. He seeks to represent a class of “all current and former non-exempt employees” of Defendant in California during the class period. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a commercial vehicle driver from November 2016 to October 2024. ProDrivers is a truck driver services company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h1c1YQ at no extra charge.[CC] QUALFON DATA: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Qualfon Data Services Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Melody Brown, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. QUALFON DATA SERVICES GROUP, LLC, DMI GC Holdings LLC, Case No. 25STCV16532 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Qualfon Data Services Group, LLC -- https://www.qualfon.com/ -- provides marketing solutions and contact center services. The Company offers a full suite of customer lifecycle services, including sales, customer care, technical support, and retention programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com QUIKAID INC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against QuikAid, Inc. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. QuikAid, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03238-TWT (N.D. Ga., June 9, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Quikaid -- https://www.quikaid.com/ -- is America's Social Security Disability Experts specialize in winning Social Security Disability claims (SSDI and SSI).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 955-7732 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com RALLY HOUSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rally House Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02250 (D. Minn., May 28, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to make its website to be fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and to other people who are blind or who have low vision, breaching both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the ADA and MHRA. Headquartered in Lenexa, KS, Rally House Stores, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.rallyhouse.com, which offers professional sports team apparel for sale including, but not limited to, jerseys, hats, gifts and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com RAWLINGS COMPANY: Zakarian Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN ZAKARIAN, and MARY JONES, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. THE RAWLINGS COMPANY LLC, RAWLINGS FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00229-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Rawlings provides legal services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Am8a3x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. Taylor P. Foye, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Facsimile: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: jkronawitter@hab-law.com tfoye@hab-law.com - and - Brian T. Meyers, Esq. Brian C. McCart, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN TIMOTHY MEYERS 1044 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 842-0006 Facsimile: (816) 842-6623 E-mail: btmeyers@btm-law.com bmccart@btm-law.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Elevator Constructors Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS UNION LOCAL NO. 1 ANNUITY & 401(K) FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECKITT BENCKISER GROUP PLC, LAXMAN NARASIMHAN, NICANDRO DURANTE, KRISTOFFER LOE LICHT, PATRICK SLY, and JEFFERY CARR, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04708 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Reckitt American Depositary Shares between January 13, 2021, and July 28, 2024, inclusive, against Reckitt and certain of its officers and executives, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Reckitt's Nutrition segment includes, among others, its infant and child nutrition businesses, its adult nutrition, and its range of vitamins, minerals, and supplements. Brands under Reckitt's Nutrition segment include infant and baby formulas such as Enfamil. Enfamil is a cow's milk-based formula designed for premature infants. While cow's milk-based formula was good for bulking up these babies quickly, science and research have advanced in recent years confirming strong links between cow-based products and Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) causing and/or substantially contributing to death in preterm and severely preterm, low-weight infants, along with many other health complications and long-term risks to these babies. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants touted the purportedly conclusive science on which Enfamil is based to assure investors and consumers of Enfamil's safety. Unbeknownst to investors, Reckitt failed to warn investors and consumers (1) that preterm infants were at an increased risk of developing NEC by consuming Reckitt's cow's milk based formula, Enfamil, and (2) of the attendant impact on Reckitt's sales of Enfamil and Reckitt's exposure to legal claims, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's ADSs, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC is a United Kingdom-based global consumer goods company, with three operating segments: (1) Hygiene, (2) Health, and (3) Nutrition.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Donald A. Broggi, Esq. Kassandra A. Nelson, Esq. Jonathan Zimmerman, Esq. Nicholas S. Bruno, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com dbroggi@scott-scott.com knelson@scott-scott.com jzimmerman@scott-scott.com nbruno@scott-scott.com REDDIT INC: Nelson Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dominique Nelson, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. REDDIT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25CU022609C was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG. In his Complaint, Plaintiff defines the putative class to include "all persons in the state of California who accessed the Reddit.com Website and had their IP address intercepted by the LiveRamp Tracker during the applicable statute of limitations."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Email: NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com - and - Mikella M. Hurley, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 700 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3960 Phone: 202.654.6200 Facsimile: 202.654.6211 Email: MHurley@perkinscoie.com - and - Elliott J. Joh, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 505 Howard Street, Ste 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105-3204 Phone: 415.344.7000 Facsimile: 415.344.7050 Email: EJoh@perkinscoie.com - and - Doris Alvarez-Reyes, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Phone: 310.788.9900 Facsimile: 310.788.3399 Email: DAlvarezReyes@perkinscoie.com RENT THE RUNWAY: Sharma Securities Suit over IPO Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Rent The Runway, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2025, that 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 complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly materially misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading concerning the company's growth at the time of the IPO. 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 the 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. All defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint and that motion was fully submitted on 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 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 approved the initial discovery plan on June 3, 2025. 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. RICOH USA: Class Certification Filing Extended in MTP Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered an order approving joint stipulation to extend deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion for class certification, continue trial, and extend all related deadlines. Ricoh produces electronic products, primarily cameras and office equipment such as printers. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EfGlFw at no extra charge.[CC] ROSELLE MOTORS: Ramirez Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roselle Motors Inc., et al. The case is styled as Francisco Ramirez, Sebastian Pallo, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated-situated, known and unknown v. Roselle Motors Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05221 (N.D. Ill, May 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Roselle Motors Inc. -- https://rosellemotors.com/ -- is a used car dealer in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jorge Sanchez, Esq. LOPEZ & SANCHEZ, LLP 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 420-6784 Email: Attysanchez@gmail.com S-K RANCH MANAGEMENT: Santos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against S-K RANCH MANAGEMENT, LLC. The case is styled as Gabriel De Jesus Santos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. S-K RANCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. VCU321585 (Cal. Super. Ct., Tulare Cty., May 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." S-K Ranch Management provides agriculture and farming of permanent crops that include wine grapes, walnuts, almonds, citrus, apples, and cherries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com S.G.V. HEALTHCARE: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against S.G.V. Healthcare, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher J. Garcia Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. S.G.V. Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 25STCV13085 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 2, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." SGV Home Health -- http://www.sgvhomehealth.com/-- is a provider of home health care in Montebello, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com SAJAHTERA INC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sajahtera, Inc. The case is styled as Adrian Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sajahtera, Inc. doing business as The Beverly Hills Hotel, Case No. 25STCV15298 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sajahtera, Inc. doing business as The Beverly Hills Hotel operates as a hotel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com SANTOS PULIDO: 6330 Pacific Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santos Pulido. The case is styled as 6330 Pacific Arcade LLC, Jeff Kern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Santos Pulido d/b/a Bionicos Marsol, Case No. 25STCV16557 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (Not Unlawful Detainer or Wrongful Eviction) (General Jurisdiction)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Kim, Esq. WCD LAW GROUP, APC 466 Foothill Blvd., #444 La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011 Phone: 213-341-0323 Email: andrew@wcdlawgroup.com SATELLITE CENTER: Kain Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Louisiana -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Satellite Center, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ryan Kain, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Satellite Center, Inc., Daniel Teachworth, Daborah Teachworth, Case No. 2:25-cv-01142-EEF-MBN (E.D. La., June 5, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. Satellite Center is a leading provider of residential and commercial satellite services in Kenner, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Stanfield Bubbett, Esq. JACKSON & JACKSON 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (504) 599-5953 Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net - and - Neil Franz Nazareth, Esq. MARTZELL & BICKFORD 338 Lafayette St. New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 581-9065 Fax: (504) 581-7635 Email: nnazareth@mbfirm.com SCREENING REPORTS: Davis Files FCRA Suit in D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Screening Reports, Inc. The case is styled as Erictavia Davis, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. Screening Reports, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01785-EA (D. Md., June 5, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Screening Reports, Inc. -- https://www.screeningreports.com/ -- provides background screening services to rental property managers and building owners in the multifamily housing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chelsea Ortega, Esq. Vaughn M Stewart, Esq. SANTONI, VOCCI & ORTEGA, LLC 201 W. Padonia Road, Suite 101a Lutherville-Timonium, MD 21093 Phone: (443) 921-8161 Fax: (410) 525-5704 Email: cortega@svolaw.com vaughnstewart3@gmail.com SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis Iudiciani, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Limitless, Case No. 1:23-cv-00443-MSM-AEM (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Amy E. Moses entered an order: Following the May 29, 2025, hearing regarding Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery and for an Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 21, I enter the following deadlines regarding the production of outstanding discovery and the filing of a motion for class certification: 1. The Defendant shall serve its amended discovery responses and document production, as discussed at the May 29, 2025, hearing on the Plaintiff's motion to compel, on or before Aug. 4, 2025. 2. Immediately following the production of those discovery responses and documents, the parties shall promptly meet and confer to schedule any outstanding depositions, which shall be completed on or before Aug. 29, 2025. 3. The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification on or before Sept. 26, 2025. Seyboth is a real estate agency. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=khmnIC at no extra charge.[CC] SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Roberts Sues Over Defective Pressure Cookers ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUCY MONTOYA ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11364-AK (D. Mass., May 14, 2025) is a class action against Defendant SharkNinja for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of SharkNinja Foodi OP300 Series Multi-Function Pressure Cookers, all of which suffered from an identical defect in design. According to the complaint, the pressure cooking lid can be opened during use, causing hot contents to escape, posing a risk of burn injuries to consumers. This defect rendered the Products unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose. On May 1, 2025, Defendant SharkNinja and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of roughly 1,846,400 pressure cookers sold in the United States. Consumers were warned that the products' lid can be opened during use, causing hot contents to escape, posing a risk of burn injuries to consumers. A refusal to offer refunds guarantees that customers who have lost faith in Defendant's products and no longer want to use a product that has caused more than 100 burn injuries and dozens of personal injury lawsuits get nothing. This approach benefits Defendant by minimizing the cost and burden of the recall, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff is filing this class action lawsuit to seek all available relief to consumers, to raise awareness that Defendant's products are a hazard, and to encourage companies to take greater care in avoiding the production of hazardous products in the first place. SharkNinja Operating LLC is a global product design and technology company based in Needham, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary St, Ste 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Roberts Sues Over Defective Product Design ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lucy Montoya Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11364-AK (D. Mass., May 14, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of SharkNinja Foodi OP300 Series Multi-Function Pressure cookers, all of which suffered from an identical defect in design. The "pressure cooking lid can be opened during use, causing hot contents to escape, posing a risk of burn injuries to consumers. A pressure cooker that poses such a hazard is unreasonably dangerous. This defect rendered the Products unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose. this case concerns a defect that Defendant admitted renders the Products unable to be used for their intended purpose. There is no dispute that a pressure cooker that cannot be used has no intrinsic value. Indeed, Defendant has instructed consumers to stop using the Products. And yet, Defendant refuses to refund customers that purchased the Products. Instead, Defendant implemented a deficient recall that allows it to say they are doing the right thing, when in fact the primary objective is to protect their bottom line. Any requests for refunds are denied. A consumer only has one publicly announced option: to contact Defendant for a purported replacement lid. Further, a refusal to offer refunds guarantees that customers who have lost faith in Defendant's products and no longer want to use a product that has caused more than 100 burn injuries and dozens of personal injury lawsuits get nothing. This approach benefits Defendant by minimizing the cost and burden of the recall. The Plaintiff is filing this class action lawsuit to seek all available relief to consumers, to raise awareness that Defendant's Products are a hazard, and to "encourage companies to take greater care in avoiding the production and sale of hazardous products in the first place," says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased one of the Defendant's Products subject to the recall. SharkNinja Operating LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business and headquarters located in Needham, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Str STE 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com SHENZHEN CHARMAST: Power Banks Pose Fire Hazards, Yim Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA YIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHENZHEN CHARMAST TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04782 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated who purchased Charmast Power Banks, model W10561, because the lithium-ion battery in the power banks can overheat and ignite, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers. Through marketing and sales, Defendants represented that the Product is safe and effective for its intended use as a portable charger power bank. At the time of the consumers' purchases, the Defendants didn't notify Plaintiff and similarly situated, of the Product's fire risk through the product labels, instructions, other packaging, advertising, or in any other manner, in violation of the state and federal law. The Plaintiff purchased the Product while lacking the knowledge that the Product could burn and harm those who use the product, thus causing serious harm to those who use such Products. Because Plaintiff and all consumers purchased the worthless and dangerous Product, which they purchased under the presumption that the Product was safe, they have suffered losses, says the suit. Shenzhen Charmast Technology Co., Ltd. is a company that markets and sells its power banks and does business in every state by listing its products for sale on line through its own website and Amazon Store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC 145 South Spring Street, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 Facsimile: (800) 867-6779 E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com SILVUS TECHNOLOGIES: Kahenasa Sues Over Pregnancy Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Kahenasa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SILVUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 25SMCV02518 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendants as a result of Pregnancy Discrimination (FEHA), Failure to Prevent Discrimination (FEHA), Retaliation (FEHA), Pregnancy Disability Leave Violations (FEHA), Gender/Pay Discrimination (FEHA), CFRA Interference/Retaliation and violation of the Equal Pay Act. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff excelled as an Accounting Manager, consistently earning strong performance reviews and bonuses. In May 2024, Plaintiff disclosed her pregnancy to her supervisor Mohammed Khan, who then informed other members of management. Following Plaintiff's pregnancy disclosure, she experienced a marked change in how management treated her and her work. In June 2024, during Plaintiff's annual performance review, her supervisor Mr. Khan provided positive verbal feedback and indicated his ratings were higher than her self-assessment. Despite the positive feedback, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with a written copy of her performance review, departing from company policy and past practice. Without explanation, Defendant reduced Plaintiff's annual bonus from $10,000 to $5,000, despite her increased salary and continued high performance. In late 2024, Defendant hired a male employee ("Manny") in essentially the same role as Plaintiff, at a salary of $120,000, which was approximately $1,550 more than Plaintiff's salary of $118,450.08, despite Plaintiff's decade of tenure and deeper job knowledge. The Defendant required Plaintiff to train Manny for her position. While Plaintiff was on pre-maternity leave PTO, Defendant prematurely revoked her email access and transferred it to Manny, giving him access to Plaintiff's private medical information and other confidential data without her consent. During closed-door meetings, Defendant's management, including the CEO and VP of Operations, discussed ways to terminate or demote Plaintiff, and considered presenting her with severance agreements to push her out of the company. Management attempted to persuade Plaintiff's supervisor to create false write-ups against her to build a case for termination. The Plaintiff raised concerns about these various issues with HR and upper management, including Defendant's CEO, but each complaint was ignored or dismissed. As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, anxiety, and sleeplessness during her pregnancy. Plaintiff remains employed by Defendant but has been effectively pushed aside and pressured to leave, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since May 2014. Silvus Technologies, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in Los Angeles County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com dan@frontierlawcenter.com eservice@frontierlawcenter.com SKILLED MANUFACTURING: Johnson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SKILLED MANUFACTURING, INC., a Michigan corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00632-RJJ-MV (W.D. Mich., June 6, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's attendance bonus pay and other non discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he earned attendance bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from September 2023 through April 2025, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Defendant is headquartered in Traverse City, Michigan, and employs hundreds of hourly employees in Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com SLOY DAHL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Nestler, et al. ERISA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Michael W. Mosman of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the first amended complaint in the case captioned as STEPHEN NESTLER and DERYCK JACKSON, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SLOY, DAHL & HOLST, LLC and ALTA TRUST COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00842-MO (D. Ore.) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice. This is a breach of fiduciary duty case under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 related to SDH's management of funds that Plaintiffs invested in through their retirement plans. The funds at issue were launched on December 31, 2015 as a series of target-risk collective investment trusts, which are pooled investment vehicles maintained by a bank or trust company available exclusively to retirement plan customers. The five funds in SDH's target risk series are the Aggressive Fund, the Growth Fund, the Balanced Fund, the Moderate Fund, and the Conservative Fund. Plaintiff Stephen Nestler is an Oregon resident who participated in a retirement plan called the Pacific Office Automation Capital Accumulation Plan from approximately 2015 through 2023. He invested in SDH's Balanced Fund through that plan. Plaintiff Deryck Jackson is a Washington resident who participated in the same plan from 2015 to 2022. He invested in the SDH Aggressive Fund through the plan. Defendant SDH is a registered investment advisor firm based in Portland, Oregon. It is the investment manager of the SDH Funds. Alta Trust Company is a chartered trust company headquartered in South Dakota with trust service offices located in Colorado and Washington. It is the trustee of the SDH Funds and it appointed SDH as the investment manager of the Funds. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs under ERISA because Defendants mismanaged the SDH Funds and caused the Funds to underperform, thus costing Plaintiffs lost investment earnings. They allege as a result of Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties, the SDH Funds have been disastrous for participants and have cost them millions of dollars in lost investment earnings to date. Defendant Alta argues Plaintiffs fail to plead an actual injury in fact as to any of the SDH Funds, so they lack constitutional standing. Defendant Alta argues that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing for all the SDH Funds including the ones they personally invested in through their retirement plans because they do not sufficiently allege that any of Defendants' alleged fiduciary breaches caused Plaintiffs any losses. Defendant SDH, on the other hand, argues that Plaintiffs only lack Article III standing for the Funds they did not personally invest in. At oral argument, Defendants argued that allegations of underperformance are meaningless without a clear benchmark by which to measure the SDH Funds, so because Plaintiffs fail to provide a benchmark, their label of "underperformance" and claims of lost earnings cannot constitute a concrete injury. According to the Court, Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is full of information about the SDH Funds in the form of metrics, charts, and tables, but those metrics do not provide a useful benchmark by which to measure the SDH Funds' overall performance. A benchmark is necessary because Plaintiffs' core theory is that the SDH Funds underperformed the market so badly that this underperformance is circumstantial evidence of mismanagement and thus a fiduciary duty breach under ERISA. Judge Mosman holds that underperformance is a relative metric. To be meaningful, performance must be measured against a benchmark or standard that the Defendants were required to meet Plaintiffs do not provide such a benchmark that would allow him to conclude that their allegations of underperformance constitute a concrete injury in fact. Accordingly, he finds that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint fails to plead constitutional standing. Because he finds he lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Mosman does not address the remainder of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t0z1bY from PacerMonitor.com. SNAP INC: Milito EPOA Lawsuit Remanded to State Court ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as JOHN MILITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SNAP INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as SNAPCHAT and SNAPCHAT, INC.; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00387-MJP (W.D. Wash.) to the King County Superior Court. Plaintiff John Milito filed this class action in King County Superior Court against Snap Inc. and various Doe Defendants, claiming Defendants violated the pay transparency requirements of Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA), RCW 49.58.110. Defendants removed the action to this Court, and Milito asserts that the matter was improperly removed. Milito lives in Washington and applied for a job opening Defendants offered in Washington. Milito alleges "the posting for the job opening Plaintiff applied to did not disclose the wage scale or salary range being offered." He alleges that he and the members of a proposed class of similarly-situated individuals "lost valuable time applying for jobs with Defendants for which the wage scale or salary range was not disclosed." But Milito alleges only that he applied for the job, not that he was qualified for the position, that he received any specific response, or that he received an interview offer. Although the EPOA protects concrete interests of job applicants, the Court finds that the alleged violation Milito identifies did not cause an actual harm or present a material risk of harm to that interest. The Court finds that the salary disclosure requirement in the EPOA was established to protect concrete, non-procedural rights for job applicants and employees. According to the Court, Milito has failed to show how the lack of disclosure caused him an actual harm or material risk of harm consistent with the EPOA. Judge Pechman explains, "In full, Milito alleges that as a result of the missing pay scale and wage range information, he lost valuable time, was unable to negotiate, and was unable to evaluate the pay for the position and compare that pay to other available positions in the marketplace. But these allegations fail to show any actual harm against which the EPOA intends to protect. Nowhere has Milito alleged that he was offered an interview or that he engaged in any pay negotiations. All Milito alleges is that he applied to job. And Milito does not even allege he was qualified for the position. As a result, the only injury Milito identifies is the time he lost in submitting the application. This is not an injury that the EPOA seeks to prevent or redress." The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because Milito does not have Article III standing, having failed to identify a concrete injury from Defendants' failure to provide statutorily-required salary information. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7cOhb3 from PacerMonitor.com. SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Motion to Dismiss Rathbun Case Denied as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia denied as moot the defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint captioned as TAMARA RATHBUN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL GROUP LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00148-LGW-BW (S.D. Ga). Plaintiff initiated this class action in July 2024. In December 2024, the Court ordered four related cases be consolidated with this one. Plaintiffs amended their complaint, as ordered, to reflect the consolidation. On May 12, 2025, Defendants Privia Medical Group of Georgia, LLC, and Southcoast Medical Group LLC separately moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Thereafter, on June 2, 2025, Plaintiffs amended their complaint. Plaintiffs timely filed their amended complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1). Further, Plaintiffs' amended complaint supersedes the consolidated complaint. Defendants' motions to dismiss have thus been rendered moot by Plaintiffs' filing of their amended complaint. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W2Dk67 from PacerMonitor.com. STACKS ESPRESSO: Bard-Hobbs Sues Over Unlawfully Retained Tips -------------------------------------------------------------- Emeline Bard-Hobbs, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. STACKS ESPRESSO LLC, TYLER WRIGHTSON, and SUE DUNCKEL, Case No. 1:25-cv-00713-LEK-TWD (N.D.N.Y., June 5, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter the "FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law (hereinafter the "NYLL") and supporting regulations to recover unlawfully retained or withheld tips, and for other relief. Around the end of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff had been making $18 per hour, and Defendants told Plaintiff to accept a pay cut to $16.50 per hour if she agreed to work on Sundays, or $15.50 per hour if she did not. The Defendant failed to furnish Plaintiff with accurate wage statements along with every payment of wages as required by NYLL. the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with a notice and acknowledgment of pay rate and pay day or any other type of wage notice as required by NYLL. the Defendant knowingly committed the foregoing acts against the Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Members, and members of the Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a barista employed by Defendants. Stacks operated coffee shops in and around Albany at four different locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Finn W. Dusenbery, Esq. HARDING MAZZOTTI, LLP 1 Wall Street Albany, NY 12205 Phone: (518) 724-2257 Fax: (518) 389-6812 Email: finn.dusenbery@1800law1010.com STAR 214: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to June 27 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE BROWN and ROY BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated consumers, v. STAR 214, LLC and STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01964-LMB-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge William E. Fitzpatrick entered an order that: -- The hearing on the Motion is continued to June 13, 2025, at 10am. -- The parties will appear for a settlement conference on June 11, 2025, at 12pm. -- The Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel shall be filed no later than 5pm on June 12, 2025. -- Any depositions scheduled for the week of June 9, 2025, may be taken the week of June 16, 2025. -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification is continued to June 27, 2025. -- The final pretrial conference before the district judge is continued to July 24, 2025, at 10am. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kiu06I at no extra charge.[CC] STRATEGIC FUNDING: Greenberg Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STRATEGIC FUNDING SOURCE, INC. D/B/A KAPITUS, Case No. 0:25-cv-60951-MD (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2025), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA")as a result of the Defendants unsolicited phone calls. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited phone calls to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA. The Defendant is a New York corporation with its headquarters located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com SWEETWOOD FARM: Lainez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sweetwood Farm, Inc. The case is styled as Manuel de Jesus Lainez, Jr., as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sweetwood Farm, Inc., Case No. 25CECG02101 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., May 2, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited - Other Employment." Sweetwood Farm is a Family-owned 40-year-old company seeking experienced senior administrative and financial person to work in Fresno office.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Brown, Esq. STANSBURY BROWN LAW, PC 2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd. Venice, CA 90291-5590 Phone: 323-204-3124 Email: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com TARGET CORPORATION: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yanet Chavez, individuals, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees and the State of California as Private Attorney General v. TARGET CORPORATION, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. CV2024-2516 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yolo, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00743. The Plaintiff's Complaint contained eight causes of action alleging: Failure to Pay Premium Wages for Unprovided Recovery Periods; Failure to Provide Recovery Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code; and Failure to pay waiting time penalties in violation of Labor Code; Violation of California's Quota Laws; Failure to Implement Heat Prevention & Maintain Legal Temperature Controls; Unfair Business Practices in Violation of California Business & Professions Code; and Enforcement of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. Taylor Wemmer, Esq. Joseph J. Kim, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 858.677.1400 Fax: 858.677.1401 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com taylor.wemmer@us.dlapiper.com joseph.kim@us.dlapiper.com - and - Stephen L. Taeusch, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 3203 Hanover Street, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650.833.2000 Fax: 650.833.2001 Email: stephen.taeusch@us.dlapiper.com TARGET CORPORATION: Williams Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Skylar Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 0:25-mc-00036-DTS (D. Minn., June 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Invalid for Civil Miscellaneous Case. Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Ste 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Phone: (612) 991-2934 Email: rshelquist@cuneolaw.com TAX SERVICES: Wins Bid to Compel Tanner Suit to Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------- Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Tax Services of America, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned ANGEL TANNER, Plaintiff, v. TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-01940-DMR (N.D. Cal.). The suit is stayed pending arbitration. Plaintiff Angel Tanner brings this class action employment wage and hour case against Defendant Tax Services of America, Inc. Tanner was employed by TSA on a seasonal basis as a tax preparer from January 2021 through January 2024. She alleges that TSA failed to properly pay its non-exempt employees for all hours worked, provide meal and rest periods, reimburse business expenses, maintain accurate time records, provide accurate wage statements, and timely pay wages owed upon separation of employment. Tanner filed this action in state court on Nov. 14, 2024. On Dec. 30, 2024, Tanner filed an amended complaint alleging nine claims: (1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 200-204, 218.6, 512, 558, 1194, 1198; (2) failure to compensate for all hours worked in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 200-204, 216, 225.5, 226, 500, 510, 558, 1197, 1198; (3) failure to provide meal periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 226.7, 512; (4) failure to provide rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226.7; (5) failure to furnish accurate wage and hour statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 226(e), 226.3; (6) failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2802; (7) failure to pay final wages on time in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 201-204; (8) unfair business practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200; and (9) violations of California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 2698 et seq. TSA filed an answer and timely removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act on Jan. 28, 2025. It filed this motion to compel arbitration and stay court action on April 18, 2025. The instant motion pertains to Tanner's second period of employment with TSA. In October 2021, Tanner submitted a job application. As part of the pre-hire process, Tanner was instructed to create an online account on TSA's personnel management system, Dayforce, in order to complete paperwork. On Oct. 14, 2021, Tanner was presented with a "Consent to Electronic Signature" agreement through Dayforce, which she signed. In so doing, Tanner agreed to electronically access, receive, review, sign, and authenticate certain documents, forms, and/or letters . . . including but not limited to the Mutual Arbitration Agreement. The Arbitration Agreement contain a delegation provision agreeing to arbitrate threshold issues of arbitrability. Tanner argues that the class action carve-out conflicts with the delegation provision, rendering the latter uncertain. The Court finds the delegation provisions clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator for all claims except challenges to the class, collective, and representative action waivers. Tanner contends that TSA has failed to demonstrate the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an agreement to arbitrate exists. TSA carried its burden by producing two arbitration agreements bearing Tanner's signature. The Court finds that an agreement to arbitrate was formed. Tanner also contends that the delegation provision is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, as is required under California law. The Court finds the arbitration agreements, and the delegation clause contained therein, are by their express terms indefinite in duration and not terminable at will, making them substantively unconscionable. Moreover, Tanner's unconscionability arguments rely exclusively on a California decision that analyzed an arbitration agreement as a whole, not a delegation clause. The Court concludes the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate containing an enforceable delegation provision. As such, the parties' remaining arguments concerning the enforceability of the Arbitration Agreement itself are for the arbitrator to decide in the first instance. To the extent the action raises nonarbitrable issues, they must be stayed until the arbitrable issues are fully arbitrated in accordance with the terms of the Arbitration Agreement. The Court thus grants the motion to compel arbitration. TSA's administrative motion to stay obligations under the initial case management conference order is denied as moot. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IHH6yg TEAM DISCOVERY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jackson Due Sept. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Team Discovery LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00399 (E.D. Wisc., Filed April 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered an order granting the expedited non-dispositive motion to amend scheduling order as follows: -- The deadline to file class certification motions is extended to Sept. 19, 2025. -- The deadline to complete fact discovery is extended to Dec. 19, 2025. -- The deadline to file summary judgment motions is extended to Feb. 6, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] TENET HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Doe Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, et al., v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01106-DC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dena Coggins entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs first amended complaint. 1. The Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted; 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for administrative relief to file a sur-reply in opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted; 3. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a. The Plaintiff Jan Doe's CMIA, ECPA, and invasion of privacy claims are dismissed without prejudice due to the first-filed action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, B.K., et al. v. Desert Care Network, et al., No. 2:23-cv-05021-SPG-PD (C.D. Cal. 2023), where those claims are presently being litigated; b. The Plaintiff James Doe's CMIA, ECPA, and invasion of privacy claims are dismissed without prejudice due to the first-filed action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, B.K., et al. v. Desert Care Network, et al., No. 2:23-cv-05021-SPG-PD (C.D. Cal. 2023), where those claims are presently being litigated; c. The Plaintiffs' CDAFA claim is dismissed with leave to amend; d. The Plaintiffs' CRA claim is dismissed with leave to amend; e. The Plaintiffs' trespass to chattels claim is dismissed with leave to amend; and f. The Defendants' motion to dismiss all other claims is denied. 4. Within 21 days of the date of entry of this order, the Plaintiffs shall file a second amended complaint, or alternatively, file a notice of their intent not to file a second amended complaint; and 5. The Plaintiffs are cautioned that their failure to comply with this order may result in an order dismissing this case due to their failure to prosecute. On Oct. 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the operative first amended class action complaint ("FAC") against the Defendants for allegedly intercepting and transmitting their protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII") to Meta Platforms, Inc., Google, and other third parties for marketing and advertising purposes, without their knowledge or consent. The Plaintiffs bring this data privacy action against Defendants on behalf of themselves and the following classes: The Tenet Healthcare Class: "For the period July 21, 2018, to the present, all individuals who are, or were, patients or prospective patients of Tenet Healthcare or any of its affiliates and who exchanged communications at the Defendants' websites, including Defendants’ patient portals." The California Subclass: "For the period July 21, 2018, to the present, all California citizens who are, or were, patients or prospective patients of Tenet Healthcare or any of its affiliates and who exchanged communications at the Defendants' websites, including the Defendants' patient portals." The Patient Subclass: "For the period July 21, 2018, to the present, all California citizens who are, or were, patients of Tenet Healthcare or any of its affiliates and who exchanged communications at the Defendants' websites, including the Defendants' patient portals." Tenet is an American for-profit multinational healthcare services company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nRKIJB at no extra charge.[CC] THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY CHAIN: Copes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services NA, Inc. The case is styled as Blake A. Copes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services NA, Inc., Case No. 25CV122510 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services NA, Inc. -- https://www.thyssenkrupp-supply-chain.com/ -- are the leading provider of supply chain management and 3PL/ 4PL services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com TORRID HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Jillson, Carmen Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Torrid Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending May 3, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Jillson and Carmen unlawful pricing class suit in the United States District Court for Central District of California. In April 2024, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Crystal Jillson and Carmen Perez v. Torrid LLC. The complaint alleges misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website under multiple legal theories including violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. In May 2025, it entered into a proposed settlement agreement to resolve this matter. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to approval by the court. Accrued legal of $4.0 million, which comprises the estimated probable loss for this case and other unrelated legal costs, is included in accrued and other current liabilities in its condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 3, 2025. In October 2024, the Company was notified by a third-party vendor that it had observed a potentially unauthorized access to its data stored in a data warehouse. It has been named as a defendant in six pending class action lawsuits alleging that it failed to employ adequate security measures to protect the data stored in the data warehouse. On February 25, 2025, the United States District Court of the Central District of California granted a motion to consolidate the six lawsuits, and plaintiffs filed a single consolidated class action complaint on April 28, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. It is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. Torrid Holdings Inc. owns a direct-to-consumer brand of apparel, intimates and accessories in North America aimed at fashionable women who are curvy and wear sizes 10 to 30. It generates revenues primarily through its e-Commerce platform www.torrid.com and stores in the United States of America, Puerto Rico and Canada. TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Stein Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Stein, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV12707 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 June 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05238. On May 1, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against Defendants which sets forth six causes of action: alleged Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5; alleged Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 232.5; alleged Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 6310; alleged Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 6311; alleged Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison M. Scott, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3100 Phone: 213.337.6550 Facsimile: 213.337.6551 Email: Allison.Scott@huschblackwell.com TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tupperware Brands Corporation, Case No. 0:25-cv-02349 (D. Minn., June 5, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.tupperware.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers food storage and cooking supplies for sale, not limited to, food storage containers, cookware, bakeware, serving dishes, water bottles, kitchen tools and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com UKG INC: Court Narrows Claims in Maxfield, et al. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part UKG Inc.'s motion to dismiss all claims in the case captioned as KIRSTEN MAXFIELD and CASEY SIMPSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UKG Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-10947-ADB (D. Mass.). Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to Counts I and III and denied as to Count II. Plaintiffs Kirsten Maxfield and Casey Simpson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, assert several claims against Defendant UKG, Inc. seeking to recover lost wages allegedly resulting from a criminal ransomware attack that occurred in December 2021. UKG is a workforce management software company that provides companies nationwide and internationally with human resource services, including timekeeping and payroll services. Among the many products and services it offers, UKG provides software known as the "Kronos Private Cloud," which is a timekeeping and payroll service through which direct employers maintain employees' personal information and timekeeping records and manage employee payroll. On or around December 11, 2021, UKG suffered a ransomware attack and data breach on the Kronos Private Cloud, which not only exposed millions of workers' personal information to cybercriminals but also interrupted timekeeping and payroll systems for employers, resulting in workers not being paid, being paid late, or being paid incorrectly. Plaintiffs are hourly employees who did not receive the full amount of their wages in a timely fashion because their direct employers (Heywood Healthcare, Inc. and MaineHealth), who used Kronos Private Cloud, were unable to process payroll during the Kronos Outage. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they and "others similarly situated are employees who were not exempt from overtime under federal and state law, were not paid owed minimum wages for all hours worked, and/or at the proper overtime premium for all overtime hours worked and/or for all regular hours worked during and after the Kronos Outage." Plaintiffs bring three causes of action against Defendant: 1) negligence, (Count I); 2) breach of contract, (Count II); and 3) unjust enrichment, (Count III)]. Negligence (Count I) Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' negligence claim on several grounds, including that the claim is foreclosed by the economic loss doctrine. Plaintiffs point the Court to no binding authority for the proposition that a non-party to a contract can recover purely economic damages for an allegedly negligent breach of that contract, nor has this Court's diligence uncovered any. Plaintiffs' contention that their negligence claim falls within the exception to the economic loss doctrine permitting negligence actions for economic damages when there is a "special relationship" between the parties is similarly unavailing. According tot he Court, plaintiffs in this case were indisputably not Defendant's employees, nor is there any allegation that Defendant had a duty to safeguard any of Plaintiffs' personal identifying information. Thus, the Court finds that the economic loss doctrine bars Plaintiffs' negligence claim, and Defendant's motion to dismiss Count I is granted. Breach of Contract (Count II) Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim on the grounds that the Amended Complaint does not allege any facts to plausibly suggest that they were third party beneficiaries of any purported contract between their employers and Defendant. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant contracted to give direct benefits to Plaintiffs, such as the direct provision to employees of continuous access to clock in, swap shifts, or request time off, and to be able to receive payroll distribution, all of which they contend make it reasonable for the Court to infer that Plaintiffs were intended and not just foreseeable beneficiaries. Although Plaintiffs' allegations are admittedly barebones, the Court cannot say, drawing every inference in their favor at this stage, that it is implausible that the payroll services agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff's employers would have intended that Plaintiffs benefit from Defendant's provision of timely, accurate payroll services. That said, the Court is increasingly skeptical that such a theory is viable, particularly given the policy implications of holding a payroll company secondarily liable for all employee wage claims simply by virtue of providing software to assist in an employer's payroll processes. But without the benefit of the payroll services agreement, the Court is unable to determine whether the "language and circumstances" of the underlying agreement in this particular case evidence such an intent. As such, Defendant's motion to dismiss Count II is denied. Unjust Enrichment (Count III) Plaintiffs plead a claim for unjust enrichment in the alternative to their other causes of action. The Amended Complaint includes no allegations from which the Court can infer that Plaintiffs, rather than their employers, conferred a benefit on Defendant. The only allegation as to a benefit received by Defendant is that UKG was unjustly enriched by charging and collecting for its services. Plaintiffs did not pay Defendant for those services, and Defendant has thus not accepted or unjustly withheld any payments from Plaintiffs such that they could be disgorged under an unjust enrichment theory. As such, Defendant's motion to dismiss Count III is granted. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EKpyZJ from PacerMonitor.com. UNIGO LLC: Mosher Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Communications ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scarlett Mosher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIGO LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03809-AMO (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for aiding, agreeing with, employing, procuring, or otherwise enabling the wiretapping of the electronic communications of visitors to its website, unigo.com (the "Website") in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Specifically, Defendant aids, agrees with, procures, or otherwise enables at least two third-party service providers to collect information from visitors to its Website: Alphabet, Inc. ("Google") and HubSpot, Inc. (collectively, the "Third Parties"). These Third Parties--as enabled by Defendant--eavesdrop on the information provided by Website visitors in the form fields, search bars, and scholarship applications. These Third Parties conduct the wiretapping through two pieces of software-as-a-service ("SaaS"): Google Ad Manager f/k/a DoubleClick ("GAM"), provided by Google, and HubSpot Forms, provided by HubSpot (collectively the "Services"). Through the Services, the electronic communications are contemporaneously acquired (i.e., collected in real time) and used by the Third Parties to, among other things, assist Defendant with its marketing, advertising, and data analytics efforts. The nature of the Third Parties' licensing agreements with Defendant are such that Defendant "aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires" to permit the Third Parties to read, attempt to read, to learn, and/or to use the confidential communications of Website visitors without prior consent, thus violating the ECPA and the CIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Website and entered information into the Website. The Defendant owns and operates the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Lane Fifth Amendment Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brantley Starr of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted in part and denied in part the United States government's motion to dismiss the takings and exaction claims in the case captioned as BRIAN P. LANE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-CV-1492-X (N.D. Tex.). This case is a putative class action involving whether a government rule banning bump stocks amounts to a taking under the Fifth Amendment or an impermissible exaction (whether the government benefits from taking money or property). On Oct. 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire from a Las Vegas hotel window on a crowd attending a music festival. The gunman killed 58 people and wounded over 400 more using weapons outfitted with bump stocks. In December 2017, the Department of Justice published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on whether bump stocks are machine guns. In December 2018, the Department published the Final Rule (the Rule), determining that bump stocks are machineguns under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5845(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(o)(2). In June 2024, in Garland v. Cargill, the Supreme Court held that a bump stock did not convert a rifle into a "machinegun" under the statutory definition, affirming the Fifth Circuit's decision that the Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Cargill, Lane amended his complaint to include a second, alternative claim for illegal exaction. The government argues that the Rule is not sufficient to effectuate a taking. It contends that Lane fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for either a taking or for an illegal exaction. According to Lane's complaint, the Department's Rule took several critical sticks from the bundle of property rights. Lane's complaint states he had a property interest in (i.e., he owned) three bump stocks; the government, through the Rule, dispossessed him of his right to legally own his bump stocks by requiring owners to surrender or destroy their bump stocks to avoid criminal prosecution; and the government did not compensate Lane for the dispossession. Accepting all well-pled allegations as true, Lane has stated a cognizable claim for a Fifth Amendment taking when the government required him to surrender or destroy his bump stocks without compensation. The government seeks to dismiss Lane's takings claim on the grounds that he cannot state a regulatory taking because the Rule was an interpretive rule. The Court finds Lane has stated a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment. The Court denies the motion as to the takings claim because Lane pled that the government took or made him destroy his bump stocks and did not compensate him. But the Court grants the motion as to Lane's illegal exaction claim. Exaction claims must show that the government benefitted from taking the plaintiff's money or property, and Lane has not pled such facts. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WRjcnI from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Plaintiff Wins Class Cert 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 Hon. Judge Dabney Friedrich entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court concludes that it is substantially likely that Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not providing adequate justification for its new sponsor documentation requirements. This ruling does not obligate ORR to approve any particular sponsor or to release any individual child. Nor does it prevent ORR from imposing more rigorous sponsor documentation requirements and thoroughly vetting sponsors on a case-by-case basis. It merely prevents the agency from creating a new blanket policy that departs from its previous one without explaining how it weighed the disrupted reliance interests against other valid considerations. The Court will certify a class consisting of all unaccompanied children (1) who were in or transferred to the custody of HHS on or before April 22, 2025; (2) who have identified a potential sponsor; and (3) whose sponsor's family reunification application has been denied, closed, withdrawn, delayed, or cannot be completed because the sponsor is missing documents newly required on or after March 7, 2025. United States Department of Health and Human Services protects the health of the US people and provides essential human services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MuSNq0 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Unaccompanied Children Class Gets Provisional Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of Class Counsel. The Court will provisionally certify the following class: "all unaccompanied children who were in or transferred to the custody of HHS on or before April 22, 2025, and who (a) have or had a potential sponsor who has been identified; and (b) the sponsor's family reunification application has been denied, closed, withdrawn, delayed, or cannot be completed because the sponsor is missing documents newly required on or after March 7, 2025." The Court further entered an order that: -- National Center for Youth Law and Democracy Forward Foundation are appointed class counsel for the class. -- The plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, is granted as to the new proof of identification and income requirements and denied as to the interim final rule. The Court grants the following injunctive relief: (1) The Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR") is prohibited from enforcing the new proof of identification requirements and new proof of income requirements currently contained in the March 7, 2025, and April 15, 2025, revisions of its Unaccompanied Alien Children Bureau Policy Guide Section 2.2.4 against all members of the certified class. (2) Within 10 days of this order, ORR shall inform all potential sponsors of class members who were disqualified or denied based on ORR's revised proof of identification and proof of income requirements described in section (1) above that they may now continue with their sponsorship applications. (3) In all cases where (a) a potential sponsor of a class member submitted a complete family reunification application and (b) the application was denied or closed or adjudication of the application was delayed in whole because of ORR's revised requirements, ORR is ORDERED to adjudicate the application without regard to the revised requirements. United States Department of Health and Human Services protects the health of the US people and provides essential human services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X8vY4B at no extra charge.[CC] VEGAS.COM LLC: Nixon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VEGAS.COM LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Nixon, Markus Cohn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VEGAS.COM LLC, Case No. 25CV124381 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." VEGAS.com, LLC -- https://www.vegas.com/ -- is a destination-specific Online Travel Agency founded in 1998 and headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Cherniak, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1201 Pacific Ave., Ste. 600 Tacoma, WA 98402-4384 Phone: 310-601-6766 Email: acherniak@hammondlawpc.com WARDEN ODUM: Court Tosses Lovelace Prisoner Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Leslie A. Gardner of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia dismissed without prejudice the case captioned as MICHAEL P. LOVELACE, JR., Plaintiff, v. WARDEN ODUM, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-00036-LAG-ALS (M.D. Ga.). Pro se Plaintiff Michael P. Lovelace, Jr., a prisoner at Valdosta State Prison in Valdosta, Georgia, has filed a class-action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C Sec. 1983. Plaintiff requests to make all inmates at Valdosta State Prison a plaintiff in the said federal lawsuit as they share the same Eighth Amendment violation with injuries A prerequisite for class action certification is a finding by the Court that the representative party can fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. Because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, the Court cannot find he is an adequate representative that can litigate on behalf of his fellow prisoners in a class action lawsuit. Each Plaintiff may file their own separate complaint asserting claims that are personal to that prisoner and for which they will be individually responsible for docketing fees. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qt5J8n PacerMonitor.com. WAREHOMES 5007: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. WAREHOMES 5007, LLC and PALM-LAKE CAFE, INC. D/B/A MUNCHIES CAFE, Case No. 1:25-cv-22564-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although well over 33 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial restaurant business has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and restaurant and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. WAREHOMES 5007, LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com WAREHOMES 5007: Pardo Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. WAREHOMES 5007, LLC and PALM-LAKE CAFE, INC. D/B/A MUNCHIES CAFE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-22564 (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. The Plaintiff visited the commercial property on March 3, 2025, where he encountered architectural barriers at the property and at the commercial restaurant business located within the property. These barriers have denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and restaurant and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA, says the suit. WAREHOMES 5007, LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com WE CARE COMMUNITY: McCowan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against We Care Community Service LLC. The case is styled as Vercia McCowan, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. We Care Community Service LLC, Case No. 25STCV16440 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." We Care Community Service LLC -- https://wecarecommunityservices.com/ -- are a company specializing in providing employment services to adults with developmental disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Wilson, Esq. 340 Harbor Ridge Dr., Palm Harbor, FL 34683-1426 Phone: 530-240-4007 Email: wilsonrobert24@gmail.com WEB TO DOOR CORP: Soberanis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Web To Door Corp. The case is styled as Elian Soberanis, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated class members v. Web To Door Corp.., Case No. 25CV123419 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Web To Door Corp. -- https://webtodoor.com/ -- offer business logistics solutions from ground, air, and ship.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com WELLS FARGO BANK: Halquist Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Earl Halquist, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Wells Fargo & CO., Case No. CGC-25-623732 was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04183-YGR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property for Account Receivable. Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an American multinational financial services company with a significant global presence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gillian Leigh Wade, Esq. Marc Alexander Castaneda, Esq. Sara Dawn Avila, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 100E Santa Monica, CA 90404 Phone: (310) 667-7273 Email: gwade@waykayslay.com marc@waykayslay.com sara@waykayslay.com The Defendant is represented by: Aaron Robert Marienthal, Esq. Alexandra S Farley, Esq. Alicia Anne Baiardo, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP Two Embarcadero Center 201 Clay Street Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 844-9944 Fax: (415) 844-9922 Email: amarienthal@mcguirewoods.com afarley@mcguirewoods.com abaiardo@mcguirewoods.com WEXFORD HEALTH: Confidentiality Designation of Docs Stricken ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to strike confidentiality designations of documents, or in the alternative file provisionally under seal and the Plaintiffs' motion to strike confidentiality designations of documents, or in the alternative file provisionally under seal. The documents attached to the Plaintiffs' class certification briefs will be unsealed. The Court holds in abeyance its decision on the Defendant's motion to seal various portions of the Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc.'s response in opposition to the motion for class certification and various exhibits. The Court directs the Plaintiffs to file a brief memorandum as to their position on the Defendant's Motion by June 11, 2025. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. The Plaintiffs have a compelling interest in the confidentiality of detailed medical information. Some medical information "can be sealed without unduly restricting the ability of the public to follow and understand the proceedings." In this case, however, the Plaintiffs argue that their experiences with Defendant's medical care make them the proper representatives for a nationwide class. The Defendant has redacted key information about Plaintiffs’ experiences with the Defendant's medical care. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court will allow Plaintiffs to respond to Defendant's request to seal before unsealing the redacted information in Defendant’s memorandum or any information in the attached expert report. Wexford is an American healthcare services company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion & order dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FR6Su6 at no extra charge.[CC] WEXFORD HEALTH: Motion to Seal in Spurlock Suit Held in Abeyance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert C. Chambers of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted the plaintiffs' motion to strike confidentiality designations of documents, or in the alternative file provisionally under seal in the case captioned as LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476 (S.D. W. Va.). Wexford Health Sources, Inc. motion to seal various portions of its response in opposition to the motion for class certification and various exhibits is held in abeyance. Materials attached to a motion for class certification are judicial records, and therefore subject to the common law right of access, because they play a role in the adjudicative process, or adjudicate substantive rights. Some documents subject to the common law right of access are also subject to a more stringent First Amendment guarantee of access. Materials that fall within the common law right may be sealed only if countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access, and the party seeking to overcome the presumption bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption. Plaintiffs seek to unseal more than 15 documents attached to their memorandum in support and reply. These documents include policy guidelines, bid documents, presentations, and internal communications. Defendant bears the burden of rebutting the presumption of public access with specific reasons in support of its position. The Court finds Defendant's showing is insufficient under either the common law or the First Amendment standard. Defendant acknowledges that its procedures and protocols are sometimes released to the public through public records requests to the governments with which it contracts. If the release of these documents causes "immediate and tangible" harm, Defendant should be able to provide a more substantial showing than is offered in this case. According to the Court, Defendant has not shown that these materials contain the type of proprietary information that justifies sealing. Defendant has failed to meet its burden, the Court concludes. Defendant seeks to seal the sensitive medical information of Plaintiffs Lauren Spurlock, Heather Smith, and Shawn Zmudzinski contained in Defendant's Response in Opposition and the attached Exhibit 1. This exhibit is the report of expert Dr. Tom Fowlkes, containing information regarding Plaintiffs' physical and mental health and the allegations in question. Defendant states that these materials do not contain any information which would be of particular importance to the public. Plaintiffs have a compelling interest in the confidentiality of detailed medical information. Some medical information can be sealed without unduly restricting the ability of the public to follow and understand the proceedings. In this case, however, they argue that their experiences with Defendant's medical care make them the proper representatives for a nationwide class. Defendant has redacted key information about Plaintiffs' experiences with Defendant's medical care. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court will allow Plaintiffs to respond to Defendant's request to seal before unsealing the redacted information in Defendant's memorandum or any information in the attached expert report. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JyfM7l from PacerMonitor.com. WHITEPAGES INC: Joint Status Report & Discovery Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CARRERA, ET AL., v. WHITEPAGES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01408-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order re stipulation regarding revised joint status report and discovery plan & order. The deadline for the first phase of discovery (i.e., concerning plaintiff's individual claims and class certification) should be 12 months after the Court rules on Whitepages' pending dispositive motions. If necessary, the deadline for remaining class discovery should be 18 months after the Court rules on Whitepages' pending dispositive motions. Whitepages is a provider of online directory services, fraud screening, background checks and identity verification for consumers and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q4pJ32 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nick Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW 450 Alaskan Way S. #200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 E-mail: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com tsome@hedinllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Tyler L. Farmer, Esq. Ariel A. Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ & FARMER LLP 4020 East Madison St., Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98112 Telephone: (206) 208-2270 E-mail: tyler@mfseattle.com ariel@mfseattle.com WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: Patterson Settlement Obtains Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the the class action settlement in the case captioned as NICOLE PATTERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00171-JMF (S.D.N.Y.) The Court enters final judgment and dismisses the action with prejudice Plaintiff Nicole Patterson, and Defendant Wildlife Conservation Society have entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement, which sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and dismissal of the Action with prejudice as to Defendant upon the terms and conditions set forth therein. On Feb. 25, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, conditionally certifying a Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of "all individuals in the United States who purchased electronic tickets to the Bronx Zoo from Defendant's website, bronxzoo.com, from Aug. 28, 2022 to and through Jan. 16, 2024, and were charged processing fees". The Court has considered the Parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement, as well as Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, And Service Award, together with all exhibits thereto, the arguments and authorities presented by the Parties and their counsel at the Final Approval Hearing held on June 5, 2025. This Court now gives final approval to the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The settlement consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement constitutes fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the Released Parties. The Court finds that the consideration to be paid to members of the Settlement Class is reasonable, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members, considering the total value of their claims compared to (i) the disputed factual and legal circumstances of the Action, (ii) affirmative defenses asserted in the Action, and (iii) the potential risks and likelihood of success of pursuing litigation on the merits. The complex legal and factual posture of this case, the parties' exchange of relevant information, and the fact that the Settlement is the result of arms-length negotiations between the Parties support this finding. The Court finds that these facts, in addition to the Court's observations throughout the litigation, demonstrate that there was no collusion present in the reaching of the Settlement Agreement, implicit or otherwise. The Court finds that the Class Representative and Class Counsel adequately represented the Settlement Class for the purposes of litigating this matter and entering into and implementing the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Settlement is finally approved in all respects. The Parties are directed to implement the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions. The Court dismisses the Action on the merits and with prejudice. Upon the Effective Date of this Final Judgment, the release of claims and the Settlement Agreement will be binding on, and will have res judicata and preclusive effect on, all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of Plaintiff and all other Settlement Class Members and Releasing Parties. All Settlement Class Members are permanently barred and enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating (as class members or otherwise) in any lawsuit or other action in any jurisdiction based on or arising out of any of the Released Claims. The Court has also considered Plaintiff's Motion For Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, And Service Award, as well as the supporting memorandum of law and declarations, and adjudges that the payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $330,000 is reasonable in light of the multi-factor test used to evaluate fee awards in the Second Circuit. The Court has also considered Plaintiff's Motion, memorandum of law, and supporting declarations for a service award to the Class Representative, Nicole Patterson. The Court adjudges that the payment of an incentive award in the amount of $5,000 to the Class Representative to compensate her for her efforts and commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class, is fair, reasonable, and justified under the circumstances of this case. All payments made to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement that are not negotiated within one hundred and eighty (180) days of issuance shall be redistributed on a pro rata basis to all Settlement Class Members who claimed their payments. To the extent that a second distribution would be infeasible, any unclaimed funds shall revert to the Legal Aid Society, which the Court approves as an appropriate cy pres recipient. A copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xCk6mm from PacerMonitor.com. WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS SIMONE, RICHARD WALKER and ORLANDO OBRET, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKFORCE7 INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES, INC. and RONALD HILTON, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order as follows: (1) Certifying Plaintiffs' New York common law claim for breach of contract (Count 10) on behalf of the following class: "all persons employed by Workforce7 Inc. at any time on or after July 1, 2018, who worked as non-union flaggers on Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ("Con Ed" construction projects in New York City, excluding projects on which Con Ed subcontracted with Vali Industries Inc. (the "Class" or "Class Members")"; (2) Appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives for the Class and appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel, Pelton Graham LLC, as Class Counsel; (3) Authorizing the Plaintiffs to send Notice of Pendency of Class Action in a form to be approved by the Court; (4) Directing Con Ed to furnish to the Plaintiffs the names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of all Class Members, and Social Security Numbers for all Class Members whose notice is returned as undeliverable without a forwarding address; and (5) Providing for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Workforce7 provides professional flagging services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rak1n7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. Kristen E. Boysen, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 WRLDINVSN LLC: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines in Murray ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murray v. WRLDINVSN LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00993 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 5, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).[CC] ZUCKERMAN FAMILY FARMS: Moreno Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Maria Moreno, an individual, on behalf of himself, the State of California, as private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZUCKERMAN FAMILY FARMS, INC., a California Corporation; ZUCKERMAN - MANDEVILLE, INC, a California Corporation; ZUCKERMAN PRODUCE, INC., a California Corporation; HERITAGE LAND CO., INC., a California Corporation; ZUCKERMAN HERITAGE, INC., a California Corporation; DELTA FARMS PACKING, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 TO 50,, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-8288 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01574-CKD. The first amended complaint ("FAC") alleges eleven causes of action against Defendant as follows: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, Failure to Pay Overtime Wages, Failure to Provide Rest Periods and Pay Missed Rest Period Premiums, Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Missed Meal Period Premium, Failure to Maintain Accurate Employment Records, Failure to Pay Wages Timely during Employment, Failure to Pay All Wages Earned and Unpaid at Separation, Failure to Indemnify All Necessary Business Expenditures, Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, Violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and Penalties Pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") for Violations of California Labor Code Sections and Other Provisions of the Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dennis C. Huie, Esq. Henry D. Stegner, Esq. Crystal J. Yu, Esq. ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL 311 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.956.2828 Facsimile: 415.956.6457 Email: dhuie@rjo.com hstegner@rjo.com cyu@rjo.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***