250624.mbx

250624.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 24, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 125 Headlines 3D SYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 12 3D SYSTEMS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Statements 3M COMPANY: Adair Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Brunt Suit Removed to S.D. Florida 3M COMPANY: Osterday Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Pytlik Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Schryer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Zeigler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams :PA. UNITED REFRIGERATION: Gomez Suit Removed to C.D. California AH GRESHAM PARK: Violates the Fair Housing Act, Jacobson Alleges APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iCloud Storage Monopoly ATAI LIFE: Monteverde & Associates Probes Merger of Beckley Psytech AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Suit Over Aurora Cannabis' Health Risks BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Monteverde & Associates Probes Sale to Sanofi BMO BANK: Denies Mortgages to Black Americans, PD Logistics Says BOJ OF WNC: Violates ADA's Accessibility Guidelines, Donahue Says BULLDOZER HOSPITALITY: Fernandez Seeks to Recover Proper Wages CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit CIGNA CORP: Filing for Class Certification in Leung Due August 22 CLEVELAND WATER: Appeals Court Greenlights Water Liens Class Suit COLUMBIA OMNI: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Claims COMMUNITY REGIONAL: Seeks to Set Aside Default Judgment in Pierre CONNECTED HEALTH CARE: Ashlock Suit Removed to C.D. California COOKUNITY LLC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia CUTELY COVERED: Witherspoon Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Improper Political Messaging D&C EXPRESS SERVICE: Zhou Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DAVIDE CENCI: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DICK'S SPORTING: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Pa. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Blind Discrimination Lawsuit DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Safety of Blind Pedestrians DLR LLC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DOCUSIGN INC: Faces Harbor Shareholder Suit in California Court DOCUSIGN INC: Pottetti Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in Del. Ch. DOCUSIGN INC: Weston Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California Court DOMINO'S PIZZA: Bids to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Labor Suit OK'd DR BRITE NATURALS: Franco Files Suit in C.D. California DS & DURGA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Says DUX NORTH: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website E MORTGAGE: Filing for Class Certification in Smith Due Dec. 17 EASYROAD POLICY: Knuth Sues Over Abusive Marketing Practices ECCO RETAIL: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ECOSHIELD PEST: Wyant Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation EDDIE BAUER: Serras Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing ELEVATION ONCOLOGY: M&A Investigates Sale to Concentra Biosciences EMIRATES: Seeks to Maintain Seal on Class Cert Exhibits in Farah EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Griffith Says ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits Over Cyberattack FAROUK SYSTEMS: Haircare Products Contain Synthetic Ingredients FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Bid for Provisional Class Cert OK'd FINNEY'S USA: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages FOOD FOR THE POOR: Capps Suit Removed to S.D. Florida FOOD FOR THE POOR: Cunningham Suit Removed to S.D. Florida FORD MOTOR: Hartman Suit Transferred to C.D. California GALAXY GAS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Marketing GEORGINA BOHN: Sosa and Pavia Seek Proper Compensation GHP MANAGEMENT: Nogueira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GLASFLOSS INDUSTRIES: Gregory Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages GOOGLE LLC: Calhoun Loses Bid for Class Certification GREENSKY LLC: Stephens Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime GRUEN ASSOCIATES: Birch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GUSTAVO Q. CARILLO: 6330 Pacific Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HALAL GUYS: Filing for Class Certification in Hegazy Due July 17 HDC GROUP: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois HEADLESS WIDOW: Pena Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages HONDA MOTOR: Class Settlement in Bolooki Gets Conditional Approval HORIZON LAND: Lucero Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action HOUZZ INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Suit Alleges HYATT CORPORATION: Ybarra Suit Removed to N.D. California ICE: Castaneda Sues Over Violations of Civil Rights IDEAL CONCEPTS: Atkins Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls INDIVIOR INC: Adelizzi Files Suit in N.D. Ohio INDIVIOR INC: Adkins Files Suit in N.D. Ohio INDIVIOR INC: Alakhras Files Suit in N.D. Ohio INNOVAGE VIRGINIA: West Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation INSTANT CHECKMATE: Clark Suit Removed to S.D. California INTERSTATE PARKING: Donelson Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss Suit J A ALEXANDER: Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought JELLY BELLY CANDY: Tuibua Suit Removed to E.D. California JEWISH VOICE: Faoro Suit Seeks to Certify Classes of Drivers K AND K TRADING: Contreras Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California KELLER WILLIAMS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over TCPA Violations KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Evans Says KETTERING HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cyberattack L'OREAL USA INC: Silva Suit Transferred to S.D. New York LEE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Secure Private Info, Fetes Suit Alleges LEXISNEXIS RISK: Dominguez Sues Over Private Data Breach LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Dias Suit Over Unprotected Private Info LEXISNEXIS RISK: Mack Sues Over Data Breach LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $8.09MM LINGS PEORIA PLACE: Hirning Sues Over Inaccessible Property M2I GLOBAL: M&A Investigates Merger With Volato Group MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Court Certifies Opioid Class Action Lawsuit MDC COAST: Faces Cheli Suit Over Property's Architectural Barriers MFM BUILDING: Hall Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & OMFWSA MIKE TERRY AUTOMATIVE: Brandt Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas MODLILY: Dalton Sues Over ADA-Noncompliant Website MONTANA BLUE: Federal Judge Certifies Class-Action Lawsuit MOUNT SINAI: McGrath Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information NAE EDISON: Covington Sues Over Unlawful Overtime Pay Scheme NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE: Carter Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. NEW YORK HEALTH: Vaca Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NEWREZ LLC: Megliorino Suit Removed to C.D. California OLD POINT: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Townebank OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle Investor Suit for $39MM PAYPAL INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Investors' Class Action Suit PGA TOUR: Faces Class Action Over Video Privacy Violations PHYSICIANS TO WOMEN: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $918,510 PINNACLE LIFE CAREERS: Hamilton Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida PROCTER & GAMBLE: Noguchi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. R.R. DONNELLEY: Hoppe Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA & WWPCL REDDIT INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit RIO TINTO: Settles Mongolian Mine Class Action Suit for $214-Mil. S. DAVID KOZICH: Frongello Suit Removed to C.D. California SELECTQUOTE INC: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SERVICEAIDE INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Gordon Says SYSCO CORP: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $2.3MM TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Actos Class Action Cert. UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Class Suit Over Consumers' Junk Fees UNITED STATES: Judge OKs Class Action Status in Transgenders' Suit UROGEN PHARMA: Cockrell Sues Over Breaches of Securities Law VERA BRADLEY: Rosen Laws Investigates Potential Securities Claims WATERWIPES USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Baby Wipes' False Ads ZUFFA LLC: Davis Sues Over Breaches of the Sherman Act ********* 3D SYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of 3D Systems Corporation (NYSE:DDD) between August 13, 2024 and May 12, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 12, 2025. SO WHAT: If you purchased 3D Systems securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the 3D Systems Corporation class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1300 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 12, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 3D Systems had understated the impact of weakened customer spending on 3D Systems' business, while overstating its resilience in challenging industry conditions; (2) in addition, the updated milestone criteria in the United Partnership (a partnership with United Therapeutics Corporation) would negatively impact 3D Systems' Regenerative Medicine Program revenue; and (3) as a result, 3D Systems' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the 3D Systems class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1300 call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] 3D SYSTEMS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against 3D Systems Corporation ("3D Systems" or the "Company") (NYSE: DDD). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding 3D Systems' business, operations, and compliance policies, including allegations that: (i) 3D Systems had understated the impact of weakened customer spending on the Company's business, while overstating its resilience in challenging industry conditions; and (ii) in addition, the updated milestone criteria in the United Partnership would negatively impact the Company's Regenerative Medicine Program revenue. If you purchased shares of 3D Systems between August 13, 2024 and May 12, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/3d-systems/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is August 12, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] 3M COMPANY: Adair Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Veronica Adair, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-901738.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00887-AMM. The Plaintiffs, Veronica Adair, et al., seek to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF") that Plaintiffs allege has resulted in contamination. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") an perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that the use of these substances caused Plaintiffs' injuries.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Fax: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com 3M COMPANY: Brunt Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lawrence Van Brunt, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2025-CA-008490 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-22616-XXXX. The Plaintiffs are individuals who seek to hold Chemguard and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF"), which Plaintiffs allege has resulted in contamination and personal injury. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that the use of these substances in AFFF caused personal injury to Plaintiffs and contamination of Plaintiffs' lands, properties, facilities, infrastructures, and resources (collectively, "Plaintiffs' Properties").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael D. Sloan, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. CityPlace Tower 525 Okeechobee Blvd., Ste. 1200 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 822-2979 Fax: (561) 659-7368 Email: msloan@carltonfields.com 3M COMPANY: Osterday Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Leo Osterday, and other similarly situated 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.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04017-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease, and High Cholesterol as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Pytlik Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Pytlik, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03967-RMG (D.S.C., May 12, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF, with knowledge that the AFFF or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Additionally, Defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, distributed, released, instructed, promoted and/or otherwise sold (directly or indirectly) PFAS-containing AFFF products to USS Fresno-LST-1182 Long Beach, California, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado and Fire Stations in Fountain, Colorado, which contaminated the municipal public drinking water system and Peter Pytlik's drinking water. Each Defendant knew or should have known that said products would contaminate the drinking water obtained from nearby sources. The Plaintiff alleges that PFAS or PFAS-containing materials developed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, released, sold, and/or used by Defendants in Class B foam, as herein alleged, caused him to be exposed to PFAS and/or PFAS-containing materials. Such exposure was a substantial factor and proximate cause of Testicular Cancer and related injuries suffered by the Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military service personnel and was diagnosed with TESTICULAR CANCER as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gale D. Pearson, Esq. Majed Nachawati, Esq. John W. Raggio, Esq. NACHAWATI LAW GROUP 310 4th Avenue South, Suite 5010 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (214) 890-0711 Email: gpearson@ntrial.com 3M COMPANY: Schryer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- Mark Schryer, and other similarly situated 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.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04034-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease, and High Cholesterol as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Clifford Williams, and other similarly situated 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.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04031-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Zeigler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lindera Denise Zeigler, Individually and as a Personal Representative of the Estate of Edward Zeigler, and other similarly situated 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.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04026-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease, and High Cholesterol as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com :PA. UNITED REFRIGERATION: Gomez Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jaime Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. :PA. UNITED REFRIGERATION, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2424056 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. 5:25-cv-01409. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleged 9 causes of action arising out of his employment with Defendant, including: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; and Violation of Business and Professions Code; and Enforcement of Labor Code ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kirstin E. Muller, Esq. Benjamin J. Treger, Esq. Darianne N. Young, Esq. HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP 233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 255-0705 Facsimile: (310) 255-0986 Email: kmuller@hkemploymentlaw.com btreger@hkemploymentlaw.com dyoung@hkemploymentlaw.com AH GRESHAM PARK: Violates the Fair Housing Act, Jacobson Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES E. JACOBSON, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AH GRESHAM PARK, LLC; AH ALBION HOUSE, LLC; TMG PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES NW, LLC; and ATLAS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, jointly and severally, Case No. 3:25-cv-01006-IM (D. Or., June 12, 2025) alleges that Defendant violates the Fair Housing Act involving Disability Discrimination. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 3602(h). On at least July 14, 2023, the Plaintiff requested an accessible parking stall and other reasonable accommodations necessary to afford equal use of the dwelling. The Defendants denied or unreasonably delayed these requests. After Plaintiff sought accommodations, the Defendants (a) imposed inflated fees, (b) threatened eviction, and (c) refused essential repairs, thereby interfering with Plaintiffs housing rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 3617. The Defendants' discriminatory conduct proximately caused Plaintiff physical hardship, emotional distress, and economic loss, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks Permanent injunctive relief compelling Defendants to provide the requested accommodations and cease retaliatory practices. The Defendants own, operate, manage, and/or control Gresham Park Apartments ("Property") and are subject to the Fair Housing Act.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iCloud Storage Monopoly ---------------------------------------------------------- MacRumors reports that Apple will face a proposed class action lawsuit in California federal court over allegations that iCloud unlawfully monopolizes iPhone users' access to core device backups, following a judge's decision to deny the company's motion to dismiss the case (via Reuters). Earlier in the third week of June, the Northern District of California ruled that plaintiffs had sufficiently amended their complaint to move forward with antitrust claims in light of "substantial new allegations." The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2024 and alleges that Apple effectively forces consumers to use iCloud for backing up iPhone data while restricting third-party cloud services from providing comparable functionality, with wired backups being the only other option. While Apple permits third-party services to back up user data such as photos, videos, and documents, the company does not allow them to access certain system-level items, including device settings, app configurations, and encrypted keychains. The plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of potentially tens of millions of iCloud subscribers, arguing that Apple's system effectively coerces users into subscribing to its paid storage tiers. Apple provides all users with 5GB of free iCloud storage. For many users, this allocation is insufficient for full-device backups. Paid plans begin at $0.99 per month for 50GB in the United States. Attorneys for the plaintiffs claim that the restricted access to full backup functionality compels users to purchase iCloud subscriptions, resulting in overcharges that violate U.S. competition law. In its motion to dismiss, Apple argued that the need to use iCloud for backups was shaped by privacy and security considerations. The company said that the restrictions on access to sensitive files were intentional and rooted in the need to protect users' personal information. Apple also contended that the case was time-barred, as plaintiffs must generally bring federal antitrust claims within four years of the alleged violation. Apple is required to file a formal response to the complaint by July 7, 2025. See the full court order for more information. [GN] ATAI LIFE: Monteverde & Associates Probes Merger of Beckley Psytech ------------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Atai Life Sciences N.V. (NASDAQ: ATAI) related to the acquisition of Beckley Psytech Limited. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/atai-life-sciences-n-v/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Suit Over Aurora Cannabis' Health Risks -------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Sinclair, writing for Cannabis Health, reports that a national class action has been brought against Aurora Cannabis in Canada, alleging that the company 'negligently' failed to warn consumers about the risk of developing Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS). On May 14, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a national class action alleging that Aurora Cannabis Inc, and Aurora Cannabis Enterprises Inc. negligently failed to warn consumers of the risk of developing CHS posed by the regular use of its products. The claim is being brought by Sotos Class Actions on behalf of all customers who purchased an Aurora Cannabis product between February 2015 and May 2025, and went on to receive a diagnosis of CHS. It alleges that the company knew, or should have known, of the risk of CHS arising from the regular use of their cannabis products, but failed to provide any warning to consumers or prescribing physicians. In 2021, the US Surgeon General released a statement warning of the potential risk of CHS in chronic cannabis users. It is usually associated with regular, high-THC cannabis use, characterised by cyclical bouts of severe nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which can persist for several days and occur as often as once every five minutes. In extreme cases, CHS has been linked to fatalities. However, the lack of standardised diagnostic criteria or routine screening, especially in jurisdictions where cannabis remains illegal, means the real prevalence of CHS is unclear. According to some research, it ranges from 350,000 in the USA, to an extrapolated estimate of 2.75 million, based on data from an emergency department survey in New York City. According to Margaret Waddell, partner at Sotos Class Actions, thousands of Canadian cannabis users are hospitalised and diagnosed with CHS every year. "We know from a study that was published in 2022 that over 8,000 individuals had been hospitalised, approximately 19,000 between 2014 - 2021, just in Ontario," she told Cannabis Health. "As cannabis was legalised during the study period (in 2018), and use has gone up since widespread commercialisation, the authors of the study estimate a significant increase in CHS, which has been borne out based upon information we have received from ER doctors. We estimate the total number of people who have suffered from CHS during the class period to be approximately 35,000 individuals, and based on Aurora's market share, we estimate that there are in the range of 5,250 individuals who would qualify as class members in the claim against Aurora." "Manufacturers should have been warning consumers about CHS" The action was commenced by a Canadian Armed Forces veteran, known as V.T, who was prescribed cannabis to treat medical conditions. After purchasing medicinal cannabis from Aurora and using it as prescribed, she is said to have experienced two extreme bouts of nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain for which she was hospitalised. On a second visit to the emergency room, she was diagnosed with CHS. V.T stopped consuming cannabis, the only known treatment for CHS, and is now understood to be symptom-free. "V.T commenced this action to help draw awareness to the fact that consuming cannabis products can cause CHS. She does not want other people to suffer the way that she did when the CHS manifested itself," said Waddell. "She would like to see Aurora (and other cannabis producers) include a warning about the risk of CHS, so that consumers are properly informed about the risk, and so that if they do suffer from CHS, they will be better able to identify what has happened, and know how to treat the symptoms." According to the claimants, none of the cannabis products that were consumed contained any warning about CHS, nor is there any warning in the product monograph or on Aurora's website. "CHS has been identified in scientific journals since 2004, and in our opinion, the manufacturer should have known about this side effect of regular use once it was identified, and certainly by the start of the class period in this case, CHS was well-recognised in the scientific community," Waddell continued. "Our opinion is that the manufacturers and distributors should have been warning consumers about CHS, just as they warn about other adverse effects, so that consumers can make informed decisions about use, continuing use, and how to respond if they develop CHS." Dr Benjamin Caplan, an experienced cannabis clinician and author of The Doctor-Approved Cannabis Handbook, agrees that there is not enough guidance around CHS for consumers or prescribing clinicians. "For most medical cannabis users -- especially those taking moderate doses of balanced or CBD-rich products -- the risk of CHS is extremely low. But for daily, high-THC users, particularly those using concentrates like wax or distillates, it's a legitimate concern," he tells Cannabis Health. "Physicians often confuse it with withdrawal, cyclic vomiting syndrome, or just assume it's unrelated to cannabis at all. There are no national guidelines, no CME credits dedicated to it, and no real infrastructure for educating prescribers on how to prevent or manage it. "We need better education, clearer diagnostic pathways, and most of all, more real-world clinical experience to make sense of it all. Fear-mongering doesn't help -- but silence isn't working either." A "bellwether" moment for cannabis? This is thought to be the first time such a legal case has been brought against a cannabis company, but both Waddell and Caplan believe it could have knock-on effects for the industry as a whole. "The Aurora case could be a bellwether moment," says Caplan. "Not necessarily because of the strength of the claim -- time will tell on that -- but because it marks a shift in consumer expectations. Cannabis is being pulled into the same legal and ethical standards that govern pharmaceuticals and supplements. That's not a bad thing." Waddell is certainly hoping that it may lead to legislative changes requiring "more robust warnings" for Canadian consumers, including the inclusion of CHS in the product monograph. "It is possible that more class actions will be commenced against other cannabis manufacturers," she adds. "We are certainly interested in speaking to anyone else who would be interested in starting a class action against any of the other Canadian manufacturers to discuss what is involved." Aurora Cannabis denies all the claims made against it. A spokesperson for the company said: "It is the Company's practice not to comment on legal matters beyond information that is made available to the public. Information pertaining to the mentioned class action can be obtained through our standard disclosures." [GN] BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Monteverde & Associates Probes Sale to Sanofi ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Blueprint Medicines Corporation (NASDAQ: BPMC) related to it sale to Sanofi. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Sanofi will pay $129.00 per share in cash at closing, and Blueprint shareholders also will receive one non-tradeable contingent value right (CVR) entitling the holder to receive two potential milestone payments of $2.00 and $4.00 per CVR for the achievement, respectively, of future development and regulatory milestones for BLU-808. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/blueprint-medicines-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] BMO BANK: Denies Mortgages to Black Americans, PD Logistics Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PD LOGISTICS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; PAVLE DUROVIC; BANS, INC., an Illinois corporation; and ARSENIJE NENEZIC, v. BMO BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-06559 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2025) is class action suit alleging Defendant's financial institutions' discriminatory practice of "redlining", and denying mortgages to Black Americans 75 years ago pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act According to the complaint, BMO has invoked this same type of unlawful discriminatory financial practice to "red line" lines of credit issued to persons of Eastern European race, ethnicity, national origin or heritage, unlawfully closing lines of credit BMO had previously issued to them because of their ethnicity, race, national origin or heritage. The suit seeks to provide appropriate relief to the Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent, who are certain current and former customers of BMO. Specifically, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others situated allege that BMO first solicited each of Plaintiffs and the Class in order to persuade them to take out a line of credit with BMO; and then, when it experienced fraud from a person who happened to be of Eastern European ethnicity or national origin, BMO embarked on a campaign of unilaterally cancelling the lines of credit and closing the bank accounts of large groups of its customers of Eastern European national origin, race or ethnicity, whose last name ended in "IC", because of their race, ethnicity or national origin. The Plaintiffs and the putative Class seek damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and all available relief under each cause of action for such unlawful and discriminatory treatment during the period five years prior to the filing of this action (The Class Period), as tolled by the filing of a previous lawsuit. BMO is a U.S. national bank headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is a subsidiary of the Canadian multinational investment bank and financial services company Bank of Montreal, which owns it through the holding company BMO Financial Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq. JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C. 65 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 107 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 789-9700 E-mail: jeff@JGBrownlaw.com - and - Angel Bakov, Esq. BAKOV LAW, LTD. One East Wacker Drive, Suite 2510 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 880-1008 E-mail: abakov@bakovlaw.com BOJ OF WNC: Violates ADA's Accessibility Guidelines, Donahue Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN KENT DONAHUE, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOJ OF WNC, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00273 (E.D. Tenn., June 12, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against the Defendant, asserting violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff's claims arise from his own experience with excessive sloping conditions in purportedly accessible parking spaces, access aisles, and curb ramps ("Parking Area" or "Parking Areas") at places of public accommodation owned, operated, controlled, and/or leased by the Defendant, and from site investigations at 13 of Defendant's Facilities also finding excessive sloping conditions. The Defendant allegedly discriminated against the Plaintiff and others similarly situated mobility-impaired persons by implementing policies and practices that consistently violate the ADA's accessibility guidelines and routinely result in access barriers at Defendant's Facilities. The ADA expressly authorizes the injunctive relief aimed at modification of existing policies, practices, or procedures that the Plaintiff seeks in this action. Specifically, the Plaintiff experienced difficulty and risk of harm navigating the parking lot and path of access to Defendant’s business due to excessive sloping, all in violation of the ADA, and that those violations exist due to inadequate compliance policy or practice that leads to, as in the case of the Defendant's parking lots, a systemic failure to maintain accessibility features at the Defendant's properties. The Plaintiff has visited Defendant's facilities located at 2223 N Charles G Seivers Blvd, Clinton, Tennessee, where he experienced unnecessary difficulty and risk of harm exiting and entering his vehicle that required him to exercise extra care due to excessive slopes in a purportedly accessible parking area and other discriminatory ADA accessibility violations. The Defendant owns, leases, and/or operates at least 122 BOJANGLES restaurants in the states of Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Luke Sanderson, Esq. Rebecca Hutto, Esq. WAMPLER, CARROLL, WILSON, & SANDERSON, PLLC 208 Adams Ave. Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 523-1844 E-mail: rebecca@wcwslaw.com alex@wcwslaw.com BULLDOZER HOSPITALITY: Fernandez Seeks to Recover Proper Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BULLDOZER HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., d/b/a OSTERIA LA BAIA, ROBERT PETROSYANTS and MARIANNA SHAHMURADYAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04490 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was paid for her hours worked at the New York foodservice workers' minimum wage, which is lower than the full New York minimum wage. However, the Defendants were not entitled to pay Plaintiff pursuant to the foodservice workers' minimum wage because they did not give Plaintiff notice of the tip credit. In addition, the Defendants provided Plaintiff with paystubs that contained incorrect information with respect to her correct rate of pay, says the suit. Bulldozer Hospitality Group, Inc. owns and operates Osteria Le Baia, a restaurant in Manhattan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------- ChargePoint Holdings, 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 a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed on November 29, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of its former officers. On May 16, 2024, the court consolidated the Class Actions into one action captioned "Khan v. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No. 23-cv-06172-PCP, appointed two lead plaintiffs, and appointed lead counsel. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between June 1, 2023 and November 16, 2023 and alleges that the Class Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding component costs and supply overruns for DC charging products which resulted in impairment charges and an adverse impact on profitability. A second class action lawsuit asserting the same claims and premised on the same underlying allegations, which purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023, was filed against the Class Defendants on January 22, 2024. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On July 19, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint which purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023. This Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the class defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act regarding ChargePoint's handling of supply chain disruptions, its revenue and the value of its inventory. Lead Plaintiffs also allege the Class Defendants engaged in a scheme to prematurely recognize revenue in violation of Sections 10(a) and (c) of the Securities and Exchange Act. The Class Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 17, 2024, and the motion is fully briefed. The motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard on July 16, 2025. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. is a designer, developer and a marketer of networked electric vehicle charging system infrastructure based in California. CIGNA CORP: Filing for Class Certification in Leung Due August 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUZANNE KISTING-LEUNG, et al., v. CIGNA CORP., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01477-DAD-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale A. 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 parties served or joined after the issuance of this scheduling order shall "make the initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined," as provided by Rule 26(a)(1)(D). All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than May 1, 2026. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than Jan. 25, 2027. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Aug. 22, 2026. The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by Oct. 24, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply thereto shall be filed by Dec. 24, 2026. All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before April 26, 2027. The final pretrial conference is set for Sept. 27, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. Cigna is an American multinational for-profit managed healthcare and insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EOIXUq at no extra charge.[CC] CLEVELAND WATER: Appeals Court Greenlights Water Liens Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Castele, writing for Signal Cleveland, reports that a panel of federal appeals court judges said that a group of Cleveland Water customers can move forward with a class-action lawsuit over the city's bill-collection practices. The long-running case alleges that Cleveland disproportionately hurt Black customers when it placed liens on properties over past-due water bills. The liens add the cost of the unpaid water balance to a homeowner's property tax bill. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund brought the case in 2019 on behalf of a group of customers. U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver had granted the customers' request to be recognized as a class for a class-action suit. The city contested that decision before a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The circuit judges upheld Oliver's order, recognizing a class of at least 943 Black customers in Cuyahoga County who had been assessed liens for Cleveland Water bills. Drawing on the findings of a plaintiffs' expert report, the judges wrote that 68% of Cleveland's water liens were found in Black neighborhoods in the county. Cleveland provides water to 1.5 million customers in most of Cuyahoga County and parts of the surrounding counties. In 2019, City Hall described water liens as a "last resort," assessed for bills that had been delinquent for 180 days and totaled at least $300. Cleveland Water bills and fair housing A key piece of the legal fight is the customers' claim that Cleveland's water liens violate the Fair Housing Act. In a court filing, the customers' attorneys described the city's water liens as a "draconian policy" that puts properties at greater risk of foreclosure. "Assessing water debt as a lien has devastating ramifications, as homeowners with water liens on their property are more likely to experience foreclosures and losses of their homes than those without liens," they said in the filing. But Cleveland argued that only a small percentage of properties with water liens end up in foreclosure. The city does not collect demographic data on its customers, nor does it target liens toward Black neighborhoods, the city's attorneys wrote in their appeal. "A lien is not an eviction notice," the city's appeal read. "It doesn't lock the door or turn off the lights. Liens merely make it more likely that municipal utilities, like Cleveland Water, can eventually recover amounts owed for their services by attaching a security interest to the serviced property." The circuit judges did not weigh in on whether the liens infringed on customers' housing rights. Judge Eric L. Clay, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote the opinion. He was joined by Judges Julia Smith Gibbons and Richard Allen Griffin, both appointed by George W. Bush. A spokesperson for Cleveland Water declined to comment on the decision. A news release from the Legal Defense Fund quoted plaintiff Albert Pickett Jr. celebrating the ruling. "You can't live your life without clean water," he said. "We've been fighting against the City of Cleveland's unfair water billing policies for years and are happy the case is moving forward." [GN] COLUMBIA OMNI: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLUMBIA OMNI CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04482 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025), arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times most recently on January 17, 2025, to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Columbia Omni Corp. owns and operates the website, www.columbiaomni.com, which offers office products, art supplies, in-house custom framing, and printing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com COMMUNITY REGIONAL: Seeks to Set Aside Default Judgment in Pierre ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN RICHARD PIERRE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER f/k/a FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00322-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(c)(1)(A), setting aside the default judgment. The Defendant contends that extraordinary relief is required to prevent irreparable harm to Defendant, which would not otherwise be able to appear in this action and oppose Plaintiff Jean Richard Pierre's ("Plaintiff") motion for leave to conduct limited discovery, which is set for hearing on July 2, 2025. The Defendant provided written notice of the instant Application to the Plaintiff's counsel on June 9, 2025, and followed up later on that same date. Plaintiff has not responded, and therefore Defendant is unaware of whether Plaintiff intends to oppose the requested ex parte relief. On March 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging the Hospital subjected him to: (1) failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) failure to pay overtime under the California Labor Code; (3) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) waiting time penalties; and (6) unlawful business practices under California Business and Professions Code. Community is a 685-bed regional hospital and trauma center in Fresno, California. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MgpxIu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew M. Paley, Esq. Ashley D. Stein, Esq. Bailey K. Bifoss, Esq. Brian B. Gillis, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: apaley@seyfarth.com astein@seyfarth.com bbifoss@seyfarth.com bgillis@seyfarth.com CONNECTED HEALTH CARE: Ashlock Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Ashlock, Crystol Scheffler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Connected Health Care, LLC, Case No. CV2500750 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Humboldt, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-04099-AMO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Contract Dispute. Connected Health Care -- https://connectedhealthcare.com/ -- is a healthcare staffing agency specializing in travel nursing, travel allied health, and permanent placement.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ashkan Shakouri, Esq. Sharon Lin, Esq. SHAKOURI LAW FIRM 401 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 261-2824 Email: ash@shakourilawfirm.com sharon@shakourilawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Stacey Dianne McKee-Knight, Esq. Janella Tineke Gholian, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-5010 Phone: (310) 788-4400 Email: stacey.knight@katten.com janella.gholian@katten.com COOKUNITY LLC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CookUnity LLC. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. CookUnity LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03237-TRJ (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. CookUnity -- https://www.cookunity.com/ -- is a food-tech company that develops a platform that connects talented chefs and artisanal food crafters to provide handcrafted meals.[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 CUTELY COVERED: Witherspoon Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cutely Covered Inc. The case is styled as Amanda Witherspoon, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Cutely Covered Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01472-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 9, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Cutely Covered -- https://cutelycovered.com/ -- is dedicated to providing their customers with high-quality fashion items and putting their needs first.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Improper Political Messaging ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOX15 reports that An Acadiana law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy, accusing the chain of improper political messaging. The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, June 18, claims CVS violated the law by sending political texts and emails to its pharmacy customers in Louisiana. These messages warned that ongoing legislative actions could lead to store closures and increased prescription drug prices. The legal action alleges CVS used patients' private information for political purposes. "We assume they thought that maybe people wouldn't care or maybe people would just ignore it and that they would be successful in their political purposes," said Blake David, the plaintiff's attorney. "Well, they were successful politically, but believe me, people noticed. It's a bipartisan issue. I haven't found anybody who's happy with what happened, that a major, major nationwide corporation with tens of billions of dollars can just blatantly violate the law." The plaintiffs are represented by the St. Martinville-based law firm of Broussard, David, and Moroux. CVS Health sent the following statement to News 15 in response to the lawsuit: "Louisiana's HB 358 came together Wednesday, June 18, with no public hearing. We believe we had a responsibility to inform our customers of misguided legislation that sought to shutter their trusted pharmacy, and we acted accordingly. Our communication with our customers, patients and members of our community was consistent with law. Our focus remains on serving the people of Louisiana: lowering drug costs, providing access to care, and helping improve health. We look forward to working productively with policymakers to continue to make prescription drugs more affordable and accessible and to promote the value of community pharmacy." [GN] D&C EXPRESS SERVICE: Zhou Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Litao Zhou, and other similarly situated employees v. D&C EXPRESS SERVICE INC d/b/a SPEEDX, Case No. 1:25-cv-03189 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations that seeks to recover overtime wages, spread of hours premium, and all unpaid wages that Defendants improperly withheld from Plaintiffs, and damages for Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs with Wage Theft Protection Act ("WTPA") statements and notices. The Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees of overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees of overtime wages, spread of hours premium, and the wages that they were entitled to receive but did not receive in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a courier worker. D&C EXPRESS SERVICE INC operates a courier company that provides delivery services to shippers and retailers by collecting, sorting, and delivering packages/parcels/items to their respective designated recipients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jiaxin Na, Esq. SEO LAW GROUP, PLLC 136-68 Roosevelt Ave., Suite 726 Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 500-3340 Email: jiaxin@seolawgroup.com DAVIDE CENCI: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVIDE CENCI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03005 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the coat, that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website. Davide Cenci, Inc. owns and operates the website, us.davidecenci.com, which serves as an online store offering clothing and accessories for men and women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DICK'S SPORTING: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dick's Sporting Goods 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 a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On February 16, 2024, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust Fund filed a putative shareholder class action complaint against the Company and certain of the Company's executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On July 30, 2024, the Court appointed the State of Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island, and Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund as lead plaintiffs in the action (now captioned In re Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00196-NR-KT). On October 15, 2024, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the same defendants alleging that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misrepresentations and omissions about the Company's business and financial condition, including regarding the Company's inventory, margins, and business prospects, as well as inventory shrinkage related to retail theft. The consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of those who purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock between August 23, 2022 and August 21, 2023, and seeks relief including damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on December 16, 2024. The Company does not believe the consolidated complaint states any meritorious claim and intends to defend this case vigorously. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is an American chain of sporting goods stores.[BN] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Blind Discrimination Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, a non-profit organization, QUDSIYA NAQUI, KEVIN ANDREWS, GERALD BARNES, RAY SMITH, and CLAIRE STANLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01694-TSC (D.D.C., May 29, 2025) challenges the Defendant's practice of systemically failing to provide blind pedestrians full and equal access to its pedestrian signals program. The Plaintiffs allege that only a fraction of the Defendant's intersections have devices with auditory, tactile, and vibrotactile cues--Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS)--to make them accessible to blind pedestrians. Moreover, by failing to ensure that blind pedestrians have full and equal access to its pedestrian signals program, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek swift and comprehensive injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all blind pedestrians who have discriminatorily denied the benefits of the Defendant's pedestrian signals program and who consequently risk their safety and independence each time they navigate intersections without proper working APS devices. District of Columbia is a public entity responsible in managing and overseeing traffic infrastructure. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Allen, Esq. Jennifer Klar, Esq. Robert Hunter, Esq. RELMAN COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington DC, 20036 Telephone: (202) 728-1888 Facsimile: (202) 728-0848 E-mail: mallen@relmanlaw.com jklar@relmanlaw.com rhunter@relmanlaw.com - and - Kaitlin Banner, Esq. Chelsea Sullivan, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 700 14TH Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 Facsimile: (202) 319-1010 E-mail: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org chelsea_sullivan@washlaw.org - and - Rachel Weisberg, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 300 South Wacker Drive, Floor 32 Chicago, IL 60606-6680 Telephone: (332) 217-2319 Facsimile: (212) 644-8636 E-mail: rweisberg@dralegal.org - and - Erin Gallagher, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 655 Third Avenue, Suite 2619 New York, NY 10017-5621 Telephone: (332) 217-2297 Facsimile: (212) 644-8636 E-mail: egallagher@dralegal.org DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Safety of Blind Pedestrians ----------------------------------------------------------------- On June 18, 2025, three leading legal civil rights defenders, Disability Rights Advocates, Relman Colfax PLLC, and The Washington Lawyers' Committee, have joined forces to file a critical public safety class action lawsuit against the District of Columbia on behalf of the DC Council of the Blind (DCCB) and five named plaintiffs. The complaint highlights systemic barriers that prevent individuals with disabilities from safely crossing the vast majority of signalized intersections in the District, depriving them of equal participation in public life. Read the complaint. While the District has installed visual pedestrian signals at more than 1,600 intersections to ensure the safety of its sighted pedestrians, only a fraction of those intersections have devices with auditory, tactile and vibrotactile cues -- Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) -- to make them accessible to blind pedestrians. Equally problematic, the modest number of signals equipped with APS are plagued by installation and maintenance issues. The class action lawsuit presents claims on behalf of people with disabilities who -- in the absence of APS -- have encountered significant challenges in navigating one of the nation's most walkable cities. Without APS, tens of thousands of blind pedestrians who live in, work in, or visit the District are left to guess whether it is safe to cross the street. In addition to endangering blind pedestrians, these experiences demean them by compromising their ability to travel through the District safely and independently, and isolate them from work, education, recreation, religious services, cultural events, and shopping. When blind pedestrians must spend extra time or money to navigate the District without functional APS, they are paying a "blindness tax" to participate fully in daily activities. "As a blind resident of DC who lives, works, socializes, plays in, and navigates this city independently, I'm part of this class action because I'm tired of having to play a high-stakes guessing game just to cross the street," said Kevin Andrews, one of the lead plaintiffs. "Sighted pedestrians get clear, immediate access to traffic signals and pedestrian signal information without delay or hesitation. Meanwhile, we are left waiting, listening, and hoping the quiet car creeping through the intersection sees us. It should not take a leap of faith to make it to work, Safeway, a medical appointment, or a friend's birthday without risking your life." The plaintiffs allege that these failures violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. "Accessibility is not optional; it is a legal right and a safety imperative," said Michael Allen, Partner at Relman Colfax. "Failure to meet compliance standards compromises the well-being, as well as the independence and dignity of individuals with disabilities, undermining the principles of equal opportunity and inclusion." Through this class action, plaintiffs are seeking swift and comprehensive injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all blind pedestrians who have been discriminatorily denied the benefits of the District's pedestrian signals program. "As a result of lawsuits in New York and Chicago, the District has two models for meeting the ADA and other legal requirements," said Kaitlin Banner, Deputy Legal Director at the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. "As part of the City's masterplan to boost roadway safety, we can collaborate with officials to transform our intersections into safe, accessible, and inclusive spaces for all pedestrians." "APS provide life-saving traffic-safety information to blind pedestrians, but only when properly installed, programmed and maintained," said Rachel Weisberg, Supervising Attorney at Disability Rights Advocates. "We are proud to partner with the blind community in D.C. to continue our work making streets across the country accessible." With the District planning to unveil a new Vision Zero Action Plan in 2025 and having already announced a new initiative in 2025 to curb traffic deaths, it is now imperative to ensure accessibility is prioritized in every part of the process, to avoid repeating or duplicating efforts down the road. "APS is a key tool in my independence toolbox, and until the city adopts its widespread use, it makes it that much harder for me and my blind and low-vision community to live the independent and full lives that everyone deserves, regardless of disability," said Qudsiya Naqui, another lead plaintiff included in the complaint. "It is confusing and dangerous for us to cross the streets in DC," said Reverend Ray Raysor, President of DCCB, the organizational plaintiff in the complaint. We don't know when to go or how long the light lasts, so it feels like we have to take our lives in our hands every time we get to a corner without APS." "I am part of this case to make a difference for people who are blind and visually impaired like me," said Gerald Barnes, one of the lead plaintiffs in the complaint. "It is tough for me to get across many streets in DC and I want the City to do more to make sure we have an equal shot to get around the City." "We're bringing this case to make DC focus on the necessities of accessibility for the blind and visually impaired community in the nation's capital," said Raymond Smith, another lead plaintiff in the complaint. "I love the city of Washington D.C., but I do not love having to navigate the complicated spokes, islands, and circles that make up the city design without functioning APS," said Claire Stanley, one of the lead plaintiffs in this case. "As someone who is blind, I travel safely by reading traffic patterns, but in D.C., the traffic patterns are often too complicated to understand. Accessible pedestrian signals enable me to travel more safely through the city and navigate these complicated traffic patterns. So, when the APS is out-of-order or simply not there, I feel limited by where I can go in the city, keeping me from a city I love." Disability Rights Advocates (DRA): With offices in California, New York, and Illinois, Disability Rights Advocates is the leading national nonprofit disability rights legal center. Its mission is to advance equal rights and opportunity for people with all types of disabilities nationwide. DRA represents people with all types of disabilities in complex, system-changing, class action cases. Thanks to DRA's precedent-setting work, people with disabilities across the country have dramatically improved access to education, health care, employment, transportation, disaster preparedness planning, voting, and housing. For more information, visit www.dralegal.org. Relman Colfax: Relman Colfax: Relman Colfax PLLC is a national civil rights law firm with a litigation practice focused on combating discrimination. The firm's disability rights practice is driven by a commitment to secure the promises of housing choice and community integration embodied in federal disability rights laws. For more information, visit https://www.relmanlaw.com/practices-35 The Washington Lawyers' Committee: The Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs partners with community members and organizations on scores of cases to combat discrimination in housing, employment, education, immigration, criminal justice reform, public accommodations, based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. The Washington Lawyers' Committee has secured a relentless stream of civil rights victories over the past five decades in an effort to achieve justice for all. For more information, please visit www.washlaw.org. [GN] DLR LLC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DLR LLC, et al. The case is styled as Luis Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Digital Realty Trust, Inc., DLR LLC, Case No. 25STCV16460 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." DLR Group -- https://www.dlrgroup.com/ -- is a global, integrated design firm with a core practice in architecture, engineering, interiors, and planning.[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 DOCUSIGN INC: Faces Harbor Shareholder Suit in California Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Docusign, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2025, that on June 3, 2025, case captioned "Harbor Capital Appreciation Fund, et al. v. DocuSign, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:25-cv-04681, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Suit purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements about its business and prospects. DocuSign is into eSignature category offering products that address broader agreement workflows, and digital transformation, including electronic signature products, enabling agreements to be signed electronically on a wide variety of devices, from virtually anywhere in the world, securely. DOCUSIGN INC: Pottetti Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in Del. Ch. ------------------------------------------------------------- Docusign, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2025, that the plaintiff in case captioned "Pottetti v. Springer, et al.," Case No. C.A. 2022-0852-PAF in the Delaware Court of Chancery on September 22, 2022, filed a notice seeking to voluntarily dismiss it and the Court granted the dismissal on June 17, 2024. Case was originally captioned "Pottetti v. Springer, et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-00652 was filed on May 17, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware names the company as a nominal defendant and members of its board of directors or, in certain instances, current or former officers, as defendants. Suit purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements about its business and prospects during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of company securities between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022. This was voluntarily dismissed on September 1, 2022, and then re-filed and on September 30, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order staying the action. DocuSign is into eSignature category offering products that address broader agreement workflows, and digital transformation, including electronic signature products, enabling agreements to be signed electronically on a wide variety of devices, from virtually anywhere in the world, securely. DOCUSIGN INC: Weston Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Docusign, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2025, that it is facing a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 8, 2022,, captioned "Weston v. DocuSign, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:22-cv-00824, naming DocuSign and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. Suit purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements about its business and prospects during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of company securities between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022. Its motion to dismiss the case at the pleading stage was denied by the U.S. District Court on April 18, 2023 and a second amended complaint was filed on April 14, 2025, but has been held in abeyance and is superseded by a third amended complaint filed May 22, 2025. Docusign's motion to dismiss that complaint was due last June 12, 2025. Discovery and other case proceedings have been stayed pending resolution of our forthcoming motion to dismiss. DocuSign is into eSignature category offering products that address broader agreement workflows, and digital transformation, including electronic signature products, enabling agreements to be signed electronically on a wide variety of devices, from virtually anywhere in the world, securely. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Bids to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Labor Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- DLA Piper secured an order granting a motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of plaintiff's complaint on behalf of Domino's in New Jersey District Court. Claims brought by Samuel Brewer (Plaintiff), a former delivery driver, on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated commercial truck drivers, alleged that Domino's failed to pay overtime wages and failed to timely pay overtime wages in violation of New Jersey wage and hour statutes. Plaintiff sought to represent all Domino's drivers in New Jersey over a six-year period. Domino's denied all allegations. Brewer had signed an electronically signed arbitration agreement at the commencement of his employment that required all employment-related claims, including wage and hour disputes, to be resolved through individual arbitration, and contained a delegation clause assigning all gateway issues to the arbitrator. The DLA Piper team documented the electronic onboarding process, demonstrating that Brewer had to use unique credentials, review the agreement, and affirmatively e-sign it. Plaintiff's counsel attempted to avoid arbitration by arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not apply due to the "transportation worker" exemption and that the Michigan Uniform Arbitration Act (MUAA) could only be enforced by Michigan state courts. They also challenged the validity of the electronic signature and the enforceability of the agreement. The DLA Piper team successfully countered these arguments, establishing that the MUAA governed the agreement (as specified in the contract), that federal courts have authority to enforce such agreements, and that electronic signatures are valid and binding under both Michigan and New Jersey law. The team also highlighted that the Plaintiff had not opted out of the agreement and failed to provide any evidence disputing his assent. The DLA Piper team representing Domino's included Joseph Piesco (New York), Chair of the firm's Labor Management Relations group, and Partner Norman Leon (Chicago). [GN] DR BRITE NATURALS: Franco Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Brite Naturals. The case is styled as Alma Franco, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dr. Brite Naturals, Case No. 8:25-cv-00999-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Dr. Brite Naturals -- https://www.drbrite.com/ -- offers comprehensive range of dental care essentials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 West Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (708) 529-5418 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com DS & DURGA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D.S. & DURGA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04484 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on January 17, 2025, to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant’s products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. D.S. & Durga, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.dsanddurga.com, which offers narrative driven perfumes, candles, and skin products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DUX NORTH: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUX NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03003 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on January 20, 2025, to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to complete the purchase. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Dux North America, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.duxiana.com, which offers bedding items for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com E MORTGAGE: Filing for Class Certification in Smith Due Dec. 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMERON SMITH, v. E MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02532-MWC-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered a scheduling order as follows: Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Pleadings Aug. 1, 2025 or Add Parties: Last Date to File Class Certification Motion: Dec. 17, 2025 Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Apr. 10, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Initial): Apr. 17, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): May 1, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: May 15, 2026 E mortgage provides a wide range of competitive mortgage and refinancing options. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wvc52b at no extra charge.[CC] EASYROAD POLICY: Knuth Sues Over Abusive Marketing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Knuth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EASYROAD POLICY LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-01213-SDM-SPF (M.D. Fla., May 12, 2025), is brought against Defendant abusive telephone marketing practices in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The Plaintiff registered the cellular telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on June 20, 2023. The Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number that received Defendant's text messages for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff at home. The Defendant maintains and/or has access to outbound transmission reports for all text messages sent advertising/promoting its services and goods. These reports show the dates, times, target telephone numbers, and content of each call sent to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff has not transacted any business with Defendant within the past 18 months before receiving the above messages. Also, Plaintiff has not made any inquiry regarding Defendant's products or services within the past 3 months before receiving the above text messages. The Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send them text message solicitations. Defendant's unlawful conduct resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number. The Defendant is a Delaware Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Gerald Donald 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 ECCO RETAIL: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ecco Retail LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02276-JRT-DLM (D. Minn., May 29, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Defendant failed to make its website fully and equally accessible to 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 its implementing regulations. Headquartered in Salem, NH, Ecco Retail owns and operates the website, www.us.ecco.com, which offers shoes and accessories for sale. [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 ECOSHIELD PEST: Wyant Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dallas Wyant, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ECOSHIELD PEST CONTROL NASHVILLE, LLC, THE SHIELD COMPANIES, LLC, and THE SHIELD CO MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a ECOSHIELD PEST SOLUTIONS or ECOSHIELD, Case No. 3:25-cv-00622 (M.D. Tenn., June 5, 2025), is brought against Defendants as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid pest control technicians. The Plaintiff alleges he and similarly situated hourly-paid pest control technicians were not paid for all their overtime hours (hours over 40 per week) at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods during all times material to this cause of action. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked for Defendants in excess of 45 hours per week during all material times but were paid only for the first five hours of their overtime hours per week at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods. The Defendants had full knowledge of Plaintiff and those similarly situated performing overtime work without being compensated for such work at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay during all times material, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid pest control Technician. The Defendants are a pest control company with operations in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Virginia and Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. Cooper Mays, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com EDDIE BAUER: Serras Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing ---------------------------------------------------- Giossi Gina Dalmazzo Serras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EDDIE BAUER LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-04430-HDV-RAO (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendant’s systematic and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and its implementing regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) due to unlawful telemarketing. Through its enactment of the TCPA, Congress sought to protect consumers from intrusive and unwanted robocalls and text messages that invade privacy and disrupt daily life. The Defendant engaged in a pattern of unlawful telemarketing by targeting Plaintiff and the proposed Class with unsolicited texts, causing widespread annoyance and harm, in violation of the TCPA including by contacting numbers registered on the National Do Not Call Registry (“National DNC”) in violation of the TCPA. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an award of actual and statutory damages to Plaintiff and the Class to compensate for the injuries inflicted by Defendant’s misconduct, and injunctive relief to halt ongoing and future unlawful telemarketing practices in violation of the TCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and was a resident of Los Angeles County, California. The Defendant is a legal entity organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in King County, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. W. Blair Castle, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 861-7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com blair@kjclawgroup.com ELEVATION ONCOLOGY: M&A Investigates Sale to Concentra Biosciences ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Elevation Oncology, Inc. (NASDAQ: ELEV) related to its sale to Concentra Biosciences, LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Elevation shareholders will receive $0.36 in cash per share, plus one non-tradeable contingent value right representing the right to receive: (i) 100% of the closing net cash in excess of $26.4 million; and (ii) 80% of any net proceeds received within five years following closing from any disposition of EO-1022 that occurs within one year following closing. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/elevation-oncology-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] EMIRATES: Seeks to Maintain Seal on Class Cert Exhibits in Farah ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH et al., v. Emirates et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order maintaining the seal on the exhibits filed by the Plaintiffs in connection with their motion for class certification. This commercially sensitive material is not publicly disseminated and is shared only on a strict need-to-know basis. That sensitivity and potential competitive harm warrants continued sealing here, the Defendant contend. Pursuant to Rule 5(b)(ii) of Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases and the Parties’ Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement (Docket No. 72), Defendants submit this letter in support of maintaining under seal the documents that the Plaintiffs filed under seal in connection with their motion for class certification. The Defendants request continued sealing of Exhibit Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24, which contain either (i) sensitive personal information of non-parties, or (ii) confidential and proprietary business information belonging to Emirates. These materials fall into two narrow, well-established categories that courts routinely recognize as justifying sealing. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qvGdpi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John J. Porta, Esq. Evan B. Citron, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue New York NY 10017-4030 Telephone: (212) 545-4069 Facsimile: (212) 972-3213 E-mail: evan.citron@jacksonlewis.com jacksonlewis.com EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Griffith Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA GRIFFITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EPISOURCE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05351 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2025) is a class action against Episource for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons' personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI), including names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, email addresses, medical information (e.g. medical record numbers, doctors, diagnoses, medicines, test results, images, care and treatment), and health insurance information. On June 10, 2025, Episource filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Texas Attorney General. Under state and federal law, organizations must report breaches involving PHI within at least 60days. On June 6, 2025, Episource also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. In response, the company stopped the activity and began investigating. The Episource investigation revealed that between January 27, 2025, and February 6, 2025, an unauthorized party had access to certain company files containing the Private Information that Episource stored on behalf of its Clients. Yet, Episource waited four months to notify its Clients, their patients, and the public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for four months that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. Episource, based in Gardena, California, is a risk adjustment services, software, and solutions for health plans and provider groups that serves payers and providers across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits Over Cyberattack ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Simpson, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that not one but two class action lawsuits have been filed against Erie Insurance even as the insurer continues to investigate its cybersecurity incident. One lawsuit was filed by an Illinois customer, Neil Plascencia; the other by Amy Haas, a former Erie employee who lives in Wisconsin. Both claim Erie Insurance was negligent in not protecting their personally identifiable information (PII) and each seeks $5 million in damages. Both actions assert that a ransomware group accessed Erie's information network on June 7 and caused a data breach. According to a report attributed to Google Threat Intelligence Group, the cybercrime group Scattered Spider could be behind Erie's woes given the timing, although this has not been confirmed. Google has warned insurers that Scattered Spider, which had been attacking retailers in the U.S. and U.K., appears to be now going after insurers. Erie has not yet publicly confirmed a data breach or a ransomware attack. The insurer has said only that its information security team identified unusual network activity and the company took immediate action to safeguard its systems and data. The insurer's systems have been down since then. Phone, email, and online applications have been affected by the outage. Plaintiff Plascencia maintains he received an emailed letter from Erie in June notifying him that a security incident exposed his PII to criminals. In its most recent update on June 14, Erie Insurance said it was making "steady progress" in its efforts to restore its computer systems that have been down. It has provided no further information on the incident, its cause or effects. "Our teams -- working alongside leading cybersecurity experts -- continue working around the clock to restore access for customers, agents and employees. We're confident in our actions, but this work is complex and takes time. We appreciate your patience and understanding," the insurer said in its June 14 update. A spokesperson said the insurer does not comment on pending litigation. [GN] FAROUK SYSTEMS: Haircare Products Contain Synthetic Ingredients --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that consumers Crystal Howard and Mariana Torres filed a class action lawsuit against Farouk Systems Inc., doing business as CHI and BioSilk. Why: Howard and Torres claim Farouk Systems falsely advertises its CHI and BioSilk haircare products as being made in the United States and containing natural ingredients. Where: The Farouk Systems class action was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Farouk Systems falsely advertises its CHI and BioSilk haircare products as being made in the United States and containing natural ingredients. Plaintiffs Crystal Howard and Mariana Torres' class action lawsuit claims Farouk Systems misrepresents its haircare products as being "natural" and made in the United States without disclosing foreign ingredients and components. Howard and Torres claim Farouk Systems fails to comply with federal and state regulations that require clear and adequate qualification of U.S.-origin claims and prohibits misleading "natural" representations. Farouk Systems falsely, unfairly and deceptively represents that its products are "Made in the USA" without clear and adequate qualification despite containing ingredients and/or components that are sourced, grown or manufactured in foreign countries, the class action alleges. Howard and Torres both seek to represent a California class of consumers who purchased one or more Farouk Systems haircare products within four years prior to the filing of the class action lawsuit. Farouk Systems haircare products allegedly contain synthetic ingredients Howard and Torres claim Farouk Systems falsely advertises its haircare products as being 90% or more natural despite containing numerous synthetic ingredients. The plaintiffs argue Farouk Systems violates California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law and is guilty of breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation. Howard and Torres demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, damages and attorney's fees and costs. In February, a class action lawsuit filed in California federal court accuses Mielle Organics of falsely labeling its haircare products as "Made in the USA" and "natural" despite allegedly using synthetic and foreign-sourced ingredients. The plaintiffs are represented by Ryan L. McBride and Jonathan Gil of Kazerouni Law Group APC. The Farouk Systems class action lawsuit is Howard, et al. v. Farouk Systems Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-00795, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Bid for Provisional Class Cert OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA CROWE & GLEN GALEMMO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03582-APM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order: -- granting provisional class certification in part, -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, and -- granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court will grant Plaintiffs' Motion for provisional class certification as to their section 706(2) claim. That class claim therefore is not moot under the inherently transitory exception. The Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit claiming that Defendants Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and its Director William K. Marshall III1 are not moving eligible inmates out of prison within the time required by the First Step Act The Plaintiffs ask to provisionally certify the following class: "All incarcerated people who have earned or will earn time credits under the First Step Act, who meet or will meet the prerequisites for prerelease custody in 18 U.S.C. section 3624(g)(1), and who have not been or will not be moved out of prison on or before the date when their time credits equal their remaining sentences. Federal Bureau of Prisons provides for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GEedgM at no extra charge.[CC] FINNEY'S USA: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Martinez, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. FINNEY'S USA OPERATIONS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV16567 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2025), is brought for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act Of 2004 ("PAGA"), as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay proper wages. In this ease, Defendants violated various provisions Of the California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more than 10 hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period; failure to provide rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to accurately record and pay sick pay; and failure to indemnify necessary business expenses. As a result Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in June 2021 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title Of Line Cook. FINNEY'S USA OPERATIONS LLC, operates as a restaurant chain of Finney's Crafthouse across Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com FOOD FOR THE POOR: Capps Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lisa Capps, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Food for the Poor, Inc., Case No. CACE-25-005062 was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit of Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-60976-AHS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Food For The Poor, Inc. -- https://foodforthepoor.org/ -- is an ecumenical Christian nonprofit organization based in Coconut Creek, Florida, United States that provides food, medicine, and shelter, among other services, to the poor in Latin America and the Caribbean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Sarah Anne Long, Esq. MCDONALD TOOLE RICHMAN & CORRENTI, P.A. 111 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1200 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 246-1800 Email: slong@mtrclegal.com FOOD FOR THE POOR: Cunningham Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Food for the Poor, Inc., Case No. CACE-25-005028 was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-60973-RS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Food For The Poor, Inc. -- https://foodforthepoor.org/ -- is an ecumenical Christian nonprofit organization based in Coconut Creek, Florida, United States that provides food, medicine, and shelter, among other services, to the poor in Latin America and the Caribbean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Marc Streisfeld, Esq. Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Claudia D. McCarron, Esq. Edward J. Finn, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 426 West Lancaster Avenue Suite 200 Devon, PA 19333 Phone: (267) 930-4787 Email: cmccarron@mullen.law efinn@mullen.law - and - Sarah Anne Long, Esq. MCDONALD TOOLE RICHMAN & CORRENTI, P.A. 111 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1200 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 246-1800 Email: slong@mtrclegal.com FORD MOTOR: Hartman Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Shannon Hartman, and all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-10829 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 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-04433-JFW-MBK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability for the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: astraus@milberg.com - and - Leland Humphrey Belew, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 224-8685 Email: lbelew@milberg.com - and - Ryan P McMillan, Esq. Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 232-1315 Email: rmcmillan@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Hector Torres, Esq. Cindy Kelly, Esq. Stephen Paul Thomasch KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 506-1700 Email: htorres@kasowitz.com ckelly@kasowitz.com sthomasch@kasowitz.com - and - Jacob J. Lantry, Esq. Curtis A. Berglund, Esq. Michelle I. Schaffer, Esq. CAMPBELL CONROY AND O'NEIL, P.C. 20 City Square, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02129 Phone: (617) 241-3000 Email: jlantry@campbell-trial-lawyers.com cberglund@campbell-trial-lawyers.com mschaffer@campbell-trial-lawyers.com - and - Robert Bosslet, Esq. Jodi M. Schebel, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3950 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (424) 288-7900 Fax: (424) 288-7901 Email: rbosslet@kasowitz.com jodi.schebel@bowmanandbrooke.com GALAXY GAS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Marketing --------------------------------------------------------------- Irvin Jackson, writing for AboutLawsuits, reports that amid a growing number of lawsuits being filed over the recreational use and marketing of nitrous oxide gas, a class action complaint against Galaxy Gas has been refiled with new plaintiffs, expanded claims and additional defendants to address issues raised in the company's attempt to have the case dismissed. The Galaxy Gas class action lawsuit was originally brought by Jacob Iannotti in February 2025, seeking compensatory damages on behalf of individuals nationwide who became addicted to the company's flavored nitrous oxide products. The complaint alleges that although Galaxy Gas canisters are marketed as culinary tools, they are intentionally designed and promoted for recreational inhalation, resulting in widespread use among teens and young adults, causing addiction, neurological injuries and other serious health consequences. While nitrous oxide is commonly used in medical settings and food preparation, inhaling the gas can cause a brief euphoric high, often referred to as doing "whippits." The lawsuit points to the growing presence of these products in vape shops and convenience stores, where they are marketed with colorful packaging, sweet flavors and accessories that facilitate direct inhalation. Galaxy Gas now faces allegations that it misled consumers and knowingly contributed to dangerous patterns of misuse. The case is part of a broader wave of nitrous oxide lawsuits being filed against manufacturers and distributors, which claim that the companies placed profits over public health by fueling recreational abuse under the guise of culinary use. FDA Nitrous Oxide Warning Roughly one month after the original Galaxy Gas class action lawsuit was filed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning regarding the risks of nitrous oxide inhalation, cautioning that it has seen a surge in reports of brain damage, paralysis, hallucinations and deaths linked to brands like Galaxy Gas. The agency emphasized that despite being sold in culinary-style packaging, these products are frequently misused for their intoxicating effects, particularly by teens and young adults. The FDA urged consumers to seek medical attention if symptoms appear and to report adverse events. In April, Galaxy Gas filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any specific injuries linked to their nitrous oxide products, and that the complaint failed to distinguish between the actions of individual defendants named in the case. On May 5, the Court issued an order (PDF) granting plaintiffs permission to respond by filing an amended complaint (PDF), which they did so on June 11. The filing is meant to address some of Galaxy Gas's complaints, but plaintiffs maintain that their case against the company is still clear. According to the lawsuit, Galaxy Gas canisters are marketed in enticing flavors like "mango smoothie" and "vanilla cupcake," with packaging designed to appeal to teens and young adults. Despite claims that the products are meant for culinary purposes, they are predominantly sold through smoke shops and websites alongside smoking paraphernalia. "Illicit users dominate the retail market for nitrous oxide with only a slight fraction of total sales actually for legal, culinary use," the amended complaint states. "This is widely known, and in recent years many in the smoke and vape industry have seized on the opportunity to sell nitrous oxide to illicit users under the guise of 'for food use only' type packaging disclaimers. Seeing big dollar signs and having no moral compass, the Amors set out to exploit this massive illicit market, and Galaxy Gas was born." Additional plaintiffs have been added to the complaint, including Matthew R. Berry, Mitchell Allen and Loren Mulville, as well as additional defendants, including Pluto Brands, LLC, Elite Retail LLC, 11Sixtysix, LLC, as well as Bensalem Amor, Sammy Amor and Karin Amor, who head Galaxy Gas, LLC. Defendants' response to the amended complaint is expected to be filed by June 30, through an answer or updated motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs' response to any motion defendants file will be due by July 30. Nitrous Oxide Addiction Lawsuits Amid growing concerns over the safety and marketing of flavored nitrous oxide products, lawsuits are now being reviewed for individuals who developed addiction or neurological injuries after using Galaxy Gas or similar products. The lawsuits allege that nitrous oxide canisters and similar products are widely marketed through smoke shops and online retailers, featuring flavors and packaging that is designed to appeal to teens and young adults. Despite the serious health risks, the lawsuits claim that manufacturers made deceptive statements about their products and failed to provide adequate warnings. Lawyers currently provide free consultations and case evaluations for individuals throughout the U.S. who may qualify for financial compensation through a Galaxy Gas lawsuit. [GN] GEORGINA BOHN: Sosa and Pavia Seek Proper Compensation ------------------------------------------------------ EVANGELINA CORTES SOSA and BENITA PAVIA, Plaintiffs v. GEORGINA BOHN, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04470 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) is a class action accusing the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New York Labor Law, and the Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights. Defendant Georgina Bohn employed Plaintiffs as home attendants. Allegedly, the Defendant maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours a week without paying them appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation as required by federal and state laws. Moreover, the Defendant disregarded and evaded recordkeeping requirements of the FLSA and NYLL by failing to maintain accurate and complete timesheets and payroll records. Georgina Bohn is an individual who employed home attendants at her residence in Manhattan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 GHP MANAGEMENT: Nogueira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against GHP Management Corporation. The case is styled as Marcia Nogueira, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. GHP Management Corporation, Case No. 25STCV16299 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." GHP -- https://www.ghpmgmt.com/ -- is a California-based property management company that oversees the property operations and resident services of multi-family apartments and townhomes in the GH Palmers Associates portfolio.[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 GLASFLOSS INDUSTRIES: Gregory Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Katelyn Gregory, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. GLASFLOSS INDUSTRIES OHIO, LLC, GLASFLOSS INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00636-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, June 6, 2025), is brought seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA) as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensations. As a result of this practice, Defendants' rounding practice consistently favored and systematically resulted in underpayment of wages to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. The Defendants knew the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were working before and after their shifts without compensation. the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' unpaid performed work constituted a part of their principal activities, which Defendants required, and was for the benefit of Defendants. As a result of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees not being paid for all hours worked, they were not paid overtime compensation for all the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. the Defendants knowingly, willfully, and with reckless disregard, engaged in the violations of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as non-exempt hourly manufacturing/production employees. The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, building, and assembling HVAC filters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-230-2955 Facsimile: 330-754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Adam L. Slone, Esq. BRIAN G. MILLER CO., LLC 250 W. Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270 Worthington, Ohio 43085 Phone: (614) 221-4035 Fax: (614) 987-7841 Email: als@bgmillerlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Calhoun Loses Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, ET AL., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order denying with prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Within 21 days of the issuance of this Order, parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint scheduling proposal for the remainder of this action. The parties' pending motions to seal will be addressed by separate court order. The Court finds as it did in both Brown and RTB, namely inquiries relating to Google’s implied consent defense will overwhelm the damages claims for all causes of action. The motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. In the action, the Plaintiffs are users of Defendant's Chrome web browser who allege that their privacy rights were violated when Google appropriated personally identifiable information it had contractually promised to leave untouched. This is one of three actions over which the Court is presiding regarding this genre of allegations. The specific claims at issue here differ significantly from the other two. Following the remand order, plaintiffs now move to certify a class of All Google Accountholders who accepted Google's U.S. Terms of Service prior to October 4, 2023 and who used the Chrome Browser in the (1) Basic Browser and/or (2) Signed In, But Not Consented for Sync modes from September 23, 2018 to the present. Google operates as a global technology company specializes in internet related services and products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LXydfy at no extra charge.[CC] GREENSKY LLC: Stephens Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Amber Stephens, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREENSKY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03194-TWT (N.D. Ga., June 6, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the putative collective members consist of current and former customer solution advocates or similar positions ("CSAs"), who were compensated on an hourly basis. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant maintained a corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its CSAs for all pre- and post- shift off-the clock work. The CSAs routinely worked 40 hours or more per week before accounting for their off-the-clock work. When the off-the-clock work is included, the CSAs, even those CSAs who were scheduled and paid for only 40 hours per week, worked over 40 hours per week without the required overtime premium for all time worked over 40 hours The Defendant, through its managers, had actual and constructive knowledge that its CSAs were completing this off-the-clock work without compensation. Nevertheless, Defendant suffered or permitted, and in fact trained and required, its CSAs to complete this unpaid work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a remote CSA from approximately January 2023 to March 2024. Greensky is "a third-party service provider and program administrator to federally insured, federal and state-chartered banks that provide consumer loans under the GreenSky programs."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com kstoops@sommerspc.com GRUEN ASSOCIATES: Birch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gruen Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Christina Birch, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Gruen Associates, Inc., Case No. 25STCV14578 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Gruen Associates -- https://www.gruenassociates.com/ -- provides architecture work. The Company offers interior design, planning, urban design, environmental planning, transportation, and landscape architecture 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 GUSTAVO Q. CARILLO: 6330 Pacific Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gustavo Q. Carillo. The case is styled as 6330 Pacific Arcade LLC, Jeff Kern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gustavo Q. Carillo d/b/a Alexa's Beauty Salon and Makeup, Case No. 25STCV16560 (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 HALAL GUYS: Filing for Class Certification in Hegazy Due July 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hegazy et al., v. The Halal Guys, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-LAP-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen Parker entered an order as follows: The class certification motion is due July 17, 2025. Discovery deadlines are extended until September 12, 2025. No further extensions. The parties shall file a status report by June 20, 2025. Halal Guys is a halal fast casual restaurant franchise. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W3QtHk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (718) 799-9111 Facsimile: (718) 799-9171 HDC GROUP: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alex Martinez, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. HDC GROUP LLC, Case No. 2025CH03125 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06363. The Plaintiff alleges that HDC improperly manufactures, markets, labels, and packages vape products as "smokeable concentrates" because he believes these products should be labeled as cannabis infused products ("CIPs"). Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action: a violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA") (Count I); a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA") (Count II); common law fraud (Count III); fraudulent concealment (Count IV); breach of express warranty (Count V); breach of implied warranty (Count VI); and, in the alternative to Counts V and VI, unjust enrichment (Count VII).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sean H. Suber, Esq. Kelly Mannion Ellis, Esq. Savannah L. Murin, Esq. Tyree Petty-Williams, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, il 60601 Phone: (312) 558-5600 Fax: (312) 558-5700 Email: ssuber@winston.com kmannion@winston.com smurin@winston.com tpettywilliams@winston.com HEADLESS WIDOW: Pena Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Del Valle Pena, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. THE HEADLESS WIDOW LLC, d/b/a HEADLESS WIDOW, and EDIN CANOVIC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04823 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to an invalid tip credit; unpaid overtime premiums due to straight rate; unpaid spread of hours premium; unlawfully retained gratuities due to an invalid tip pooling policy; liquidated damages; and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but Defendants failed to pay him the proper overtime premium rate of one-and-half times of his regular hourly rate for each hour exceeding 40 hours per workweek in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of paying at the New York State tip credit minimum wage and at an improper overtime rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Defendants were not entitled to claim any tip credits from Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members under FLSA or NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a bartender for the Defendants' restaurant and cocktail bar. The Defendants collectively own and operate restaurant and cocktail bar "The Headless Widow."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 HONDA MOTOR: Class Settlement in Bolooki Gets Conditional Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hamid Bolooki v. Honda Motor Company Limited et al. (re HONDA IDLE STOP LITIGATION), Case No. 2:22-cv-04252-MCS-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi entered an order regarding motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: The Court conditionally approves the class action settlement as outlined in the Updated Settlement Agreement. The Court conditionally certifies the class for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Class shall consist of: "All individuals or legal entities who own or owned, purchase(d) or lease(d) Class Vehicles in any of the 50 states." Excluded from the Class are (1) AHM, its related entities, parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, and employees; (2) insurers or financier of the Class Vehicles; (3) all persons and/or entities claiming to be subrogated to the rights of Class Members; (4) issuers or providers of extended vehicle warranties or extended service contracts; (5) individuals and/or entities who validly and timely opt-out of the Settlement; (6) individuals or businesses that have purchased Class Vehicles previously deemed a total loss (i.e. salvage) (subject to verification through Carfax or other means); (7) current and former owners of a Class Vehicle who previously have released all claims against AHM with respect to the issues raised in the Litigation; and (8) any judge to whom this matter is assigned, and his or her immediate family (spouse, domestic partner, or children). The Court further entered an order: 1. Conditionally appointing as Class Representatives Kevin Bishop, Janice Stewart, Brandon Derry, Jeff Kaminski, Devron Elliot, Marilyn Thomas, Daniel Rock, Antoinette Lanus, Sirous Pourjafar, Melissa Howell, David Jew, Sharon Marie Johnson, Liz Simpson, Hamid Balooki, Malik Barrett, Sean Crary, Sadia Durrani, Abby O’Neill, Latasha Ransome, and Ali Qureshi. 2. Conditionally appointingsthe following counsel as Class Counsel: H. Clay,Esq. Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DiCello Levitt, LLP - and - Andrew Trailor, Esq. ANDREW T. TRAILOR, P.A. The Court approves the proposed Notice Plan as to form and content. The Court directs the parties to retain JND Legal Administration as the Notice Administrator, and orders JND to provide notice of the settlement to the Settlement Class Members as provided by the Updated Settlement Agreement. Honda is a Japanese multinational conglomerate automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4kNO54 at no extra charge.[CC] HORIZON LAND: Lucero Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA LUCERO, DONOVAN MCCLURE, KARIANE AMPARAN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. HORIZON LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and RYAN HOTCHKISS, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-00903-JKB (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act Claim. The Defendants continue to rely on the hard work of its Hourly Employees. They cannot, however, sit back and enjoy the fruits of this labor and at the same time refuse to pay for it. This is the exact unlawful conduct the FLSA was designed to prevent. For these reasons, Plaintiffs seeks this Court’s Order (1) Conditionally certifying a collective of all Hourly Employees (regardless of actual title) employed by Defendants at any time in the United States during the last three years plus any period of tolling; (2) authorizing Plaintiffs to act as Collective Representatives; (3) authorizing the attorneys of Leventhal Swan Taylor Temming PC and Viruni Law to act as counsel for the collective; (4) directing Defendants to produce the names, mailing addresses, dates of employment, job title, job location, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all putative members of the FLSA collective in an electronically readable format within fourteen (14) days of its order granting this Motion; (5) approving notice to the collective members in the forms and mediums attached as Group Exhibit 7, and allowing collective members ninety (90) days from mailing within which to return an opt-in form; and (6) directing Defendants to prominently post the approved notice in each of its locations within the United States for the duration of the opt-in period. The Defendants employed Lucero first as an Assistant Community Manager from March 2022 to June 2022 and then as a Community Manager from approximately June 2022 to February 2025. Horizon owns, operates, and manages manufactured home communities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xteu3G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vincent Z. Viruni, Esq. VIRUNI | LAW 137 National Plaza, Suite 300 National Harbor, MD 20745 Telephone: (866) 405-1615 Facsimile: (866) 321-1102 E-mail: vviruni@virunilaw.com - and - Andrew E. Swan, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. LEVENTHAL SWAN TAYLOR TEMMING PC 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 710 Denver, CO 80209 Telephone: (720) 699-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 E-mail: aswan@lstt.law sengelson@lstt.law HOUZZ INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Houzz, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-01910-PJS-LIB (D. Minn., April 30, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website (www.samsung.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly situated, seek relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its website accessible to Plaintiffs and the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that Defendant's website remains accessible in the future. The Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just equitable, and appropriate. The Defendant offers an online community centered around architecture, interior design and home-improvement, which provides for sale goods and services, including but not limited to, home-improvement design and planning software, a database rofessionals in the home improvement and landscaping industries, as well as home renovation supplies and accessories for sale.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. HRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndselaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com HYATT CORPORATION: Ybarra Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Richard Anthony Ybarra, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hyatt Corporation, Case No. 25-CIV-01067 was removed from the San Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04101-JST to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Hyatt Hotels Corporation -- http://www.hyatt.com/-- commonly known as Hyatt Hotels & Resorts, is an American multinational hospitality company headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago that manages and franchises luxury and business hotels, resorts, and vacation properties.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. Natalie Rose Haritoonian, Esq. Andrea Alejandra Amaya Silva, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: emil@d.law d.yeremian@d.law n.haritoonian@d.law a.amaya@d.law The Defendant is represented by: Brian Patrick Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Fax: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com - and - Michael Afar, Esq. Sofya Perelshteyn, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Fax: (310) 201-5219 Email: mafar@seyfarth.com sperelshteyn@seyfarth.com ICE: Castaneda Sues Over Violations of Civil Rights --------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Job Castaneda, in his individual capacity and his representative capacity as founder and director of California Association of Family Services, a nonprofit association headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE); LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT (LAPD); LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (LASD); DONALD J. TRUMP; TOM HOMAN; GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California; and JOHN DOES 1–50, Case No. 2:25-cv-05209 (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2025), is brought under the U.S. Constitution and California law seeking damages and immediate injunctive relief from ongoing violations of civil rights The Plaintiff challenge a coordinated campaign of unlawful cooperation between local police departments and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the California Values Act, and other federal and state laws. Since November 2024, there has been a sharp rise in immigration raids across California — particularly in Latino neighborhoods — conducted with the active cooperation of local law enforcement. These raids have in unlawful arrests, family separations, and violations of due process. The Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom failed to enforce California's sanctuary laws or restrain local law enforcement from coordinating with federal agents, despite ample notice and legal authority to do so. The organizational plaintiff, CAFSBenefits.net, headquartered in Los Angeles, provides legal and financial assistance to immigrant families and has diverted significant resources to respond to this crisis, suffering institutional harm, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of California and founder of CAFSBenefits.net. ICE is a federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement, sued for its unconstitutional conduct in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Christopher Castaneda, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. REZNICK A Professional Corporation 283 Ocho Rios Way Oak Park, CA 91377-5540 Phone: (626) 869-4832 Email: bryanchristophercastaneda@gmail.com IDEAL CONCEPTS: Atkins Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Benjamin Atkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IDEAL CONCEPTS, INC. D/B/A INSUREME, Case No. 3:25-cv-00641 (M.D. Fla., June 10, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telephone calls. To promote its services, Defendant places unsolicited telephone calls utilizing an artificial and/or prerecorded voice. 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 himself 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 Pennsylvania corporation with its headquarters located in Allentown, Pennsylvania.[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 INDIVIOR INC: Adelizzi Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indivior Inc., et al. The case is styled as Adelizzi, Nicole Bennett, Zachary Conway, Krystal Graham, Bobby Heno, Leslie McCarty, Jerry Sweney, Rick Todd, and others similarly situated v. Indivior Inc., Indivior Solutions, Inc., Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. f/k/a MonoSol RX, LLC, Case No. 1:25-sf-65933-JPC (N.D. Ohio, June 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Indivior -- https://www.indivior.com/ -- is a specialty pharmaceuticals business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Layne C. Hilton, Esq. MEYER WILSON 900 Camp Street, Ste. 337 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (866) 827-6537 Email: lhilton@meyerwilson.com INDIVIOR INC: Adkins Files Suit in N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indivior Inc., et al. The case is styled as Garrett Adkins, and others similarly situated v. Indivior Inc., Indivior Solutions, Inc., Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. f/k/a MonoSol RX, LLC, Case No. 1:25-sf-65931-JPC (N.D. Ohio, June 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Indivior -- https://www.indivior.com/ -- is a specialty pharmaceuticals business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Kimball, Esq. SEIGEL LAW - RIDGEWOOD 505 Goffle Road Ridgewood, NJ 07450 Phone: (201) 444-4000 Fax: (201) 444-7717 Email: jkimball@seigellaw.com INDIVIOR INC: Alakhras Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indivior Inc., et al. The case is styled as Youssef Alakhras, Travis Archibald, Carl Ball, Ashleigh Blais, Holly Hellmuth, Jaclyn Jennings, Craig Lawson, Ashley Lepird, Kyleigh Mathewson, Victoria Novoselsky, Tanya Palumbo, Shane Polega, Angela Redmond, Patrick Rice, Jeremy Soblo, Jeremy Somers, Justin Winter, Jamie Zacek, and others similarly situated v. Indivior Inc., Indivior Solutions, Inc., Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. f/k/a MonoSol RX, LLC, Case No. 1:25-sf-65932-JPC (N.D. Ohio, June 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Indivior -- https://www.indivior.com/ -- is a specialty pharmaceuticals business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura Smith, Esq. KELLEY UUSTAL - FORT LAUDERDALE 500 North Federal Highway, Ste. 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 522-6601 Fax: (954) 522-6608 Email: lsh@kulaw.com INNOVAGE VIRGINIA: West Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa M. West, for herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INNOVAGE VIRGINIA PACE, II, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00060 (E.D. Va., June 6, 2025), is brought against the Defendant under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (hereinafter "FLSA"), and her individual claim under the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA") as a result of the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation. The Plaintiff worked at least 55 hours per week, but was rarely paid overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is similarly situated to dozens of current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant who worked extensive overtime hours off the clock at the insistence of Defendant, and were paid nothing in violation of federal and state law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt, hourly home health care nurse employed by Defendant. The Defendant is a nationwide company providing services from three branches in Virginia (Peninsula, Richmond and Blue Ridge).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Colt North, Esq. THE CONSUMER & EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C. 5629 George Washington Memorial Hwy, Suite D Yorktown, VA 23692 Phone: (757) 873-1010 Fax: (757) 873-8375 Email: cnorthlaw@aol.com INSTANT CHECKMATE: Clark Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Clark, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. INSTANT CHECKMATE, LLC, INTELIUS LLC, and TRUTHFINDER, LLC, Case No. 25CU023563C was removed from the Superior Court of the State 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-01474-JO-MSB. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a single cause of action under Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act ("PTFA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants list and sell Plaintiff's and other consumers' cell phone numbers for commercial purposes, purportedly in violation of "their PTFA privacy rights."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason C. Hamilton, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 628.600.2250 Facsimile: 628.221.5828 Email: jhamilton@beneschlaw.com - and - Mark S. Eisen, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 71 South Wacker, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.212.4949 Facsimile: 312.767.9192 Email: meisen@beneschlaw.com INTERSTATE PARKING: Donelson Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Courtney Montrell Donelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERSTATE PARKING, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00345 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00817-NJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Interstate Parking -- https://www.interstateparking.com/ -- offers public parking, event parking, municipal parking solutions, and a portal for ticketing violations and information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com The Respondents are represented by: Christina Marie Sanfelippo, Esq. COZEN & O'CONNOR 123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 474-4455 Fax: (312) 229-0558 IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC) common stock between January 11, 2022 and May 30, 2023. iRhythm is a digital healthcare company that develops and manufactures heart monitoring devices designed to diagnose arrhythmias. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: According to the complaint, during the class period, iRhythm represented to investors that the Zio AT monitor was a real-time monitor intended for a target audience of high-risk patients. The Company's legacy monitor and main product, Zio XT, is a heart monitor intended for non-critical patients, as it does not provide real-time reporting. The Company touted the potential growth for the Zio AT as an innovative product that had only just begun to penetrate the market for real-time monitoring, which investors looked upon favorably given the premium selling price associated with devices approved for high-risk patients. As a result of these representations, the price of iRhythm common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the class period. When the truth was revealed, the price of iRhythm declined. On June 3, 2025, Judge Jacqueline S. Corley granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. In so doing, Judge Corley paved the way for litigation to proceed against iRhythm and its CEO. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against iRhythm Technologies, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (800) 350-6003 E-mail: adumas@robbinsllp.com [GN] J A ALEXANDER: Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN ROMERO MONTERO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by J A ALEXANDER, INC WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC., MARIA REBIMBAS, individually, and JOSEPH DOMINICK REBIMBAS, individually, v. J A ALEXANDER, INC., WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC., MARIA REBIMBAS, individually, and JOSEPH DOMINICK REBIMBAS, individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-21679-SRC-JRA (D.N.J.), the Parties will move the Court for preliminary approval of their joint motion for class and collective action settlement. J. A. is a construction company, specializing in concrete, earthwork. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YYjM7V at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Glenn, Esq. Jodi Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com The Defendants are represented by: Molly Hurley Kellett, Esq. CONNELL FOLEY, LLP 56 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973)535-0500 E-mail: mkellett@connellfoley.com JELLY BELLY CANDY: Tuibua Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Peniana Tuibua, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JELLY BELLY CANDY COMPANY, a California corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CU25-03758 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00724. The Plaintiff, by her Complaint, purports to allege the following eight causes of action on behalf of herself and others: Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Pay All Sick Time; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Cheryl A. Sabnis, Esq. Gymmel M. Trembly, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 1 Post Street, Suite 2400, San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: +1 415 749 9500 Facsimile: +1 415 749 9502 Email: csabnis@vedderprice.com gtrembly@vedderprice.com JEWISH VOICE: Faoro Suit Seeks to Certify Classes of Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL FAORO, v. JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00289-ABJ (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying two subclasses pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 23.1, appointing Faoro as class representative, and to appointing class counsel. The Plaintiff filed this suit as a class action against organizational and individual defendants who conspired to unlawfully blockade multiple public highways, bridges, and roads in and leading into the District of Columbia on Feb. 1, 2024, snarling traffic, trapping thousands of drivers and passengers in their vehicles, and impeding the use of public roads by himself and thousands of other commuters, drivers, and other travelers. He now moves this Court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3), to certify the following two subclasses: A (b)(2) class of: "All drivers and passengers of vehicles traveling on the morning of Feb. 1, 2024, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. in the District of Columbia; the City of Alexandria, Virginia; Arlington County, Virginia; and Fairfax County, Virginia, who were confined in their vehicles because of the actions blockading traffic in Washington, DC, and who routinely travel on a route affected by the blockade." A (b)(3) class of: "All drivers of vehicles traveling on the morning of Feb. 1, 2024, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. in the District of Columbia; the City of Alexandria, Virginia; Arlington County, Virginia; and Fairfax County, Virginia, who were confined in their vehicles because of the actions blockading traffic in Washington, DC." Excluded from the classes are judges or justices presiding over the case and their immediate family and their staff. Jewish is an American Jewish anti-Zionist and left-wing advocacy organization. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kTdF4T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna St. John, Esq. Neville S. Hedley, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (917) 327-2392 E-mail: anna.stjohn@hlli.org K AND K TRADING: Contreras Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against K and K Trading LLC. The case is styled as Ana Contreras, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. K and K Trading LLC doing business as: Marie Nicole Clothing, Case No. 5:25-cv-01433-SSS-DTB (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. K and K Trading LLC doing business as Marie Nicole Clothing -- https://marienicoleclothing.com/ -- offers adorable, affordable and comfortable children's boutique clothing & more for wholesale prices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com KELLER WILLIAMS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over TCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bennett Loudon, writing for The Daily Record, reports that a Rochester resident has filed a federal lawsuit against Keller Williams Realty LLC seeking class action status for alleged violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). According to the complaint, filed Thursday, June 12, in the U.S. District Court in Rochester, Keller Williams, a national real estate corporation based in Texas, "engages in aggressive unsolicited telemarketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process." "Defendant utilizes aggressive marketing to push its products and services without regards to consumers' rights under the TCPA," the suit claims. The named plaintiff, Sydney Thayer, is represented by Miami attorney Andrew J. Shamis. The complaint seeks an injunction to stop the supposedly illegal conduct along with actual and statutory damages. The lawsuit seeks up to $1,500 for each call in violation of the TCPA, which would add up to more than the $5 million threshold for federal court jurisdiction. The complaint alleges that Keller Williams sent Thayer telemarketing texts from April 2024 through, at least, March 2025. The messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the use of Keller Williams real estate services, the suit claims. "At no point in time did plaintiff provide defendant with her express written consent to be contacted. Specifically, plaintiff never completed any type of form that clearly and conspicuously authorized defendant to contact plaintiff's residential cellular telephone with marketing text messages," according to the suit. Thayer's phone number was registered with the national do-not-call registry and the TCPA regulations prohibit any telephone solicitation to a telephone subscriber who has registered their telephone number on the national do-not-call registry, according to the suit. The complaint proposes a class that includes all persons in the United States who, from four years prior to the filing of the complaint, were sent a text message by, or on behalf of, Keller Williams, more than one time within any 12-month period, where the telephone number was on the national do not call registry for at least 30 days, for the purpose of selling Keller Williams' products and services, without prior express written consent. "The exact number and identities of the class members are unknown at this time and can only be ascertained through discovery," according to the complaint. The suit claims Keller Williams violated regulations of the do-not-call registry and is liable for damages of up to $500 per violation. If the alleged misconduct is found to be willful and knowing, the damages could be tripled, according to the suit. "We are aware of the lawsuit alleging a TCPA violation by a real estate agent affiliated with one of our independently owned franchisees, and we are reviewing the matter," Keller Williams spokesperson Darryl Frost wrote in an email responding to a request for comment. [GN] KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Evans Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JAESYN EVANS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-01902-TDC (D. Md., June 12, 2025) arises from the public disclosure of the confidential and private Personally Identifiable Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, which was in Defendant's possession and exposed during a cyberattack on Kelly Benefits' systems that began on or around December 2024. According to the complaint, the Data Breach resulted from Defendant's collective failure to adequately safeguard that information. According to the Defendant, the PII unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach includes Class members' names and Social Security numbers. The Defendant failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the PII of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members. Although Defendant purportedly discovered the Data Breach in December of 2024, they failed to immediately notify and warn current and former patients, with Kelly Benefits waiting until April of 2025 to provide written notice to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to protect the sensitive PII of current and former Benefits Recipients -- and to promptly and fully notify them of the Data Breach -- Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members have suffered significant harm and damages, warranting class-wide relief, says the suit. The Plaintiff was required to provide his PII to his employer, which was then shared with Kelly Benefits in connection with the administration of those benefits. This included, but was not limited to, Plaintiff's name and Social Security numbeKelly Benefits is a company that provides employee-benefit management services to its clients. The Defendant is a company that provides employee benefits administration and management services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com - and - Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com KETTERING HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cyberattack ------------------------------------------------------------- On Monday, June 16, Dayton area lawyers Michael Wright and Richard Schulte announced a class action lawsuit against Kettering Health and other parties on behalf of those who had personal information stolen during the Kettering Health cyberattack. The complaint was filed in Montgomery County and the firm currently represents hundreds of plaintiffs. According to the complaint, a ransomware group called Interlock hacked Kettering Health's network on May 20 and stole more than 700,000 files from more than 20,000 folders. The stolen information included names, dates of birth, social security numbers, health insurance, and financial information. We'll have a Dayton 24/7 Now crew at that press conference Monday afternoon and will update you on this story all day long. [GN] L'OREAL USA INC: Silva Suit Transferred to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marilyn Silva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02007 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 10, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04864-AT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip 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 The Defendant is represented by: Craig A. Ollenschleger, Esq. ORLOFF, LOWENBACH, STIFELMAN & SIEGEL, P.A. 44 Whippany Road, Suite 100 Morristown, NJ 07960 Phone: (973) 622-6200 Email: co@olss.com LEE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Secure Private Info, Fetes Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH FETES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEE ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:25-cv-00067-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, June 12, 2025) is class action arises out of the recent data breach involving the Defendant, a media company that provides local news, information, and advertising in 72 markets and 25 states. The Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers (Private Information). Accordingly, current and former employees are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of employment, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff’s and Class Members' Private Information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to the Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff’s and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of the Defendant's failure to adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. As a condition of employment, Defendant required Plaintiff to provide them her Private Information. LEE ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED is a publicly traded American media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IO 50265-5749 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Dominguez Sues Over Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- LUISITO DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02946-SDG (N.D. Ga., May 29, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the Class Members, including, without limitation: names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers. On or about December 25, 2024, an intruder accessed Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ PII through a third-party software development platform. However, Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until on or about May 27, 2025, depriving Plaintiff and the Class Members of months to protect themselves from the fallout of the data breach incident. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. is a data and analytics company headquartered in Alpharetta, GA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS AND GENTILE, P.A. 26 Grand Georgian Ct. Cartersville, GA 30121 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400.4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Dias Suit Over Unprotected Private Info -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS DIAS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02966-SDG (N.D. Ga., May 29, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers of Defendant including names, Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, dates of birth, and contact information such as phone numbers, mailing addresses, and/or email addresses. According the Defendant's notification letter, the Defendant learned of the data breach on April 1, 2025, though the breach apparently occurred in December 2024. Moreover, the Defendant's failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII constitutes an unfair act or practice prohibited by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of bailment, and invasion of privacy. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. is a data and analytics company headquartered in Alpharetta, GA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. Daniel H.Wirth, Esq. ALONSO &WIRTH 1708 Peachtree St., Ste. 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4509 Facsimile: (678) 490-3668 E-mail: jalonso@alonsowirth.com dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Mack Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------- Susan Mack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, Case No. 1:25-cv-03207-SDG (N.D. Ga., June 7, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach") and is brought on behalf Of all persons who entrusted Defendant to hold in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII", collectively, the "Private Information"), the putative class members. This Data Breach occurred on December 25, 2024, and was reported on May 24, 2025. As one of the largest data brokers in the country, Defendant possesses an extensive amount of Plaintiffs and the Class Members' PII. This Private Information included but is not limited to "name, contact information, Social Security number, Driver's License number and date of birth." By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiffs and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. Yet, on December 25, 2024, an unauthorized third-pany acquired certain data belonging to Defendant from a third-party platform used for software development. The Private Information was acquired by cyber criminals who perpetrated the attack and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals. The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement these obligatory adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for entering into a contract for use of Defendant's services. The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement these obligatory adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals Private Information with which they were entrusted for entering into a contract for use of Defendant's services, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual citizen of Pennsylvania, residing in the city of Hoestead. LNRS is a data broker that operates internationally helping companies in the financial, insurance, healthcare, and government sectors to assess risk and identity fraud.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ainsworth Dudley, Esq. DUDLEY LAW, LLC P.O. Box 53319 Atlanta, GA 30355 Email: Adudleylaw@gmail.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd. Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Email: Imontgomery@eksm.com LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $8.09MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lightspeed Commerce Inc., (NYSE: LSPD) (TSX: LSPD) ("Lightspeed" or the "Company"), the unified omnichannel platform powering ambitious retail and hospitality businesses in over 100 countries, announced that it has reached an agreement in principle to resolve in full the proposed class action proceedings filed in Quebec. The settlement follows the recent dismissal of a parallel U.S. securities class action against the Company, where the court found the plaintiff's allegations to have no adequate legal basis. The settlement, which remains subject to the approval of the Superior Court of Quebec, purports to definitely settle and discharge all claims put forward on behalf of the proposed class members against the Company and the other defendants. As part of the settlement, the Company and the other settling defendants admit no liability and deny all allegations of wrongdoing whatsoever. "Lightspeed is in a moment of transformation, centering our business on strategic growth as we build a long-term profitable company for our customers and shareholders," explained Founder and CEO, Dax Dasilva. "Resolving this action means Lightspeed can remain focused on our transformation–concentrating on the markets where we have a proven right to win–and delivering exceptional experiences to our customers worldwide." The amount of the settlement is $8.09 million. [GN] LINGS PEORIA PLACE: Hirning Sues Over Inaccessible Property ----------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Hirning, and others similarly situated v. LINGS PEORIA PLACE LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01786 (D. Colo., June 7, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") as a result of the Defendant's inaccessible property. The Plaintiff has visited the Property once before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to China Chef, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. Although Plaintiff may not have personally encountered each and every barrier to access identified in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff became aware of all identified barriers prior to filing the Complaint and because Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property as a customer and advocate for the disabled within six months or sooner after the barriers to access are removed, it is likely that despite not actually encountering a particular barrier to access on one visit, Plaintiff may encounter a different barrier to access identified in the Complaint in a subsequent visit, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. LINGS PEORIA PLACE LLC, is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements that China Chef.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com M2I GLOBAL: M&A Investigates Merger With Volato Group ----------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating M2i Global, Inc. (OTCQB: MTWO) related to its merger with Volato Group, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed merger, M2i will own approximately 90% of the combined company. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/m2i-global-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Court Certifies Opioid Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Akshay Kulkarni of CBC News reports that the B.C. Supreme Court has certified a Canada-wide class-action lawsuit against consultancy firm McKinsey & Company as part of ongoing legal efforts by the province to recover health-care costs relating to the toxic drug crisis. In a judgment posted Friday, June 13, the province alleges the company advised opioid manufacturers and helped design advertising campaigns that led to the over-prescription of opioids. The class-action lawsuit sought by the provincial government -- in which it would act as a lead plaintiff, on behalf of other provinces and the federal government -- is closely related to another similar lawsuit that the province is pursuing against pharmaceutical companies for their alleged role in the illicit drug crisis. The poisoned drug epidemic was declared a public health emergency in the province in April 2016, and more than 16,000 people have died in B.C. since then. According to the province, McKinsey helped design campaigns for Canadian pharmaceutical companies that made false claims about opioids to prescribers and the public -- ultimately causing an over-prescription of addictive drugs and harming those who used them. While Justice Michael Brundrett didn't agree with all of the province's arguments, he found there was enough in its case for it to proceed to a full class-action hearing. "While I acknowledge the importance of individual issues, I nevertheless assess that the joint litigation of the proposed common issues will significantly advance judicial economy," he wrote in his judgment. The province, on behalf of other jurisdictions, and McKinsey will now proceed to a trial where the province seeks to recover health-care, pharmaceutical and treatment costs. B.C. Supreme Court certifies Canada-wide class-action lawsuit against opioid makers B.C. can sue opioid providers for health-care costs on behalf of other governments, Canada's top court rules For its part, McKinsey said the complaint was without merit and it would defend itself in court. "McKinsey & Company did not undertake any work in Canada related to the sale or marketing of opioids," a spokesperson said in an email. Province alleges conspiracy In seeking to certify a class-action lawsuit, a plaintiff must prove that the alleged damages done to them are shared by a group of others, and that the group's common issues must be heard in one sitting. The provincial government asserted to the court that McKinsey's actions and advice were consistent across the U.S. and Canada. McKinsey has already admitted to being involved in a U.S. lawsuit regarding promoting opioids in that country, in which it agreed to pay $600 million US over claims it aided Purdue Pharma in encouraging opioid over-prescription. In addition to linking McKinsey's actions to Purdue Canada, the province further alleged that McKinsey's consultancy north of the border included doing work for other opioid distributors Janssen, Endo, and McKesson. Justice Brundrett wrote that the province's theory was that McKinsey was "the effective 'hand in the glove' for the improper promotion of opioid manufacturing." The judge noted that the consultancy firm had raised serious issues as to whether its actions had promoted prescription use in Canada or not. "Certification does not involve an assessment of the merits and is not a pronouncement on the viability or strength of the action," the judge wrote. "The outcome of certification is not predictive of the outcome of the common issues at trial." AG says lawsuit about accountability B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma said the action, on behalf of other jurisdictions, was part of her job to hold companies accountable and recover damages on behalf of taxpayers. "This is part of a large lawsuit so we can recover what taxpayers had to pay since 1996, because of the health impacts on so many people and the tragic losses that we've suffered in this province," she told CBC News. Leslie McBain, who lost her son Jordan to an oxycodone overdose in 2014, said companies that were marketing opioids in an irresponsible way should be held accountable. However, the advocate and founder of Moms Stop The Harm said governments should devote their attention to tackling the ongoing toxic drug crisis instead. "On the one hand. I'm glad to hear this news," she said of the lawsuit. "But on the other hand, it doesn't solve anything right now." [GN] MDC COAST: Faces Cheli Suit Over Property's Architectural Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLENE CHELI, an Individual Plaintiff v. MDC COAST 8, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06095 (D.N.J., May 29, 2025) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Defendant's property, as prohibited by the ADA and the LAD. Moreover, Plaintiff personally encountered and physically experienced exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered her safety, caused her inconvenience, and forced her to suffer dignitary harm at the Defendant's property. MDC Coast 8, LLC owns a parcel of land in Deptford, NJ upon which is situated a place of public accommodation, a movie theater known as AMC Deptford 8. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. Shadinger Law, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com MFM BUILDING: Hall Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & OMFWSA ----------------------------------------------------------- DANNY HALL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MFM BUILDING PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00655-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, June 12, 2025) challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA). The Representative Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA and the OMFWSA. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee. During his employment with Defendant, he regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant is a manufacturer of exterior, self-adhering waterproofing barriers for residential and commercial construction industries located in Coshocton, Ohio. It manufactures a variety of construction products ranging from flooring products to HVAC products to roofing products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam L. Slone, Esq. BRIAN G. MILLER CO., LLC 250 W. Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270 Worthington, OH 43085 Telephone: (614) 221-4035 Facsimile: (614) 987-7841 E-mail: als@bgmillerlaw.com MIKE TERRY AUTOMATIVE: Brandt Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mike Terry Automative Group LLC. The case is styled as Eric Brandt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mike Terry Automative Group LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00240 (W.D. Tex., June 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Mike Terry Auto Group LLC -- https://www.mterryautogroup.com/ -- is a well-established automotive dealership in Mexia, Texas, offering a wide selection of vehicles for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com MODLILY: Dalton Sues Over ADA-Noncompliant Website -------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Modlily, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02275-DSD-ECW (D. Minn., May 29, 2025), alleges violations of 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. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Plaintiff Dalton asserts that 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. Headquartered in Little Rock, AR, Modlily owns and operates the website, www.modlily.com, which offers women's clothing and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MONTANA BLUE: Federal Judge Certifies Class-Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Darrell Ehrlick, writing for Daily Montanan, reports that A federal judge has certified a class-action lawsuit against the largest insurance carrier in Montana, Montana Blue Cross-Blue Shield, based upon allegations that the company denied thousands of "large dollar" claims without proper medical review, leaving residents with insurance to face staggering medical bills or bankruptcy for procedures it deemed "not medically necessary." Judge Brian M. Morris, the chief judge of the federal district of Montana, said a claim originally filed by a Helena couple, Johnny and Mary Rutherford, could convert into a class-action claim because of evidence that indicates Montana Blue Cross-Blue Shield, which is owned by Health Care Service Corporation, routinely denied claims without following state law that required investigation and documentation before a denial. Morris noted that the company provided little in the way of evidence to halt the class-action suit. "HSCS provided no substantive response to Rutherford's motion for class certification," Morris noted in order, issued Wednesday, June 11. HCSC told the Daily Montanan that it will not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit, filed in Helena, outlines the way the insurance company, which covers tens of thousands of Montanans, routinely denies large-dollar claims, more than $50,000, by a formulaic procedure that intentionally doesn't ask for documentation or support for medical procedures, and doesn't use specialists when reviewing medical records. Attorneys John Morrison and Scott Peterson of Helena represent the Rutherfords, and they allege in court filings that as many as 15,000 claims may have incorrectly been denied by HCSC, which does business as Montana Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and that Montana law requires it to perform a deeper medical investigation before denying claims. In the lawsuit, attorneys say that state law requires all insurers to "reasonably investigate claims based on all available information," and claims that HCSC didn't just ignore medical documentation, but routinely refused to ask for it. Morris, in his order, said that it was reasonable to award a "class certification" status to Rutherford and possibly thousands of others because "if HCSC is required to change its standard operation procedure, each class member would be provided a different level of review, potentially changing the outcome of their claim status." Originally, the large insurer had sought to dismiss the lawsuit, or keep it under court seal. But newly released documents in the case show that during depositions -- when attorneys question the opposing party -- representatives of HCSC revealed the large number of claims it denies, and also those denials are usually done quickly, and rarely, if ever, seek other medical records or conversations with medical providers. In court documents, attorneys for Rutherford detail that any claim for more than $50,000 is flagged for review as a matter of policy, and that HCSC has more than 10,000 pages of medical policies, with checklists of when to pay claims. During questioning, medical reviewers said they checked only the records that were sent to them to ensure they literally checked the boxes. If they did not, an HCSC employee denied the claim and sent it to a doctor for review. From there, court records said, a medical reviewer would review the work and the record to make sure the medical record did not meet the requirements. The doctors who were hired to review the work were not specialists trained in the procedures they were reviewing, and they told the court they never asked for more documentation or face-to-face meetings with the doctors who performed the procedures which were denied. "They are not permitted to ask for additional records. They do not contact the treating provider to ask questions. They do not contact the patient. They do not look at the policy," the lawsuit alleges. Dr. Kimberly Warren Ellis reviewed Rutherford's claim, which involved a collapsed vertebrae in his back, but told attorneys she did not have training in spinal conditions or surgery. "Dr. Ellis testified that she does not think about or consider the impact her denials have on plan members or their families because, 'that is not (her) job,'" court records indicate. Nurse Kelly Dunkirk, who originally reviewed Rutherford's claim, reviewed 64 "large-dollar" claims, sending 17 of them for review by physicians -- approximately 27%. Meanwhile, Ellis on the same day denied 9-out-10 claims, according to court records. According to Ellis' timecard, she spent less than four minutes reviewing each file. During the court discovery process, attorneys for Rutherford got a larger look at how the state's largest insurance company treated claims. "In the last five years, HCSC says it has denied 15,127 claims in Montana alone as 'not medically necessary," the court filings say. "According to HCSC, 3,841 (25%) of these claims were appealed by the (patient); 1,165 (30%) of the appeals resulted in the denial being reversed and the claim being accepted and paid." A recently retired employee from HCSC who was involved with handling Rutherford's claim testified that denying claims was part of the system. "People usually just wind up paying the bill when a claim is denied," said Yvonne Hencley. Attorneys for Rutherford said the HCSC practices specifically violate Montana law which states that "no person may . . . refuse to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information." While HCSC finally agreed to reverse its decision for Rutherford, state law allows those denied coverage unfairly to continue to seek damages, including suffering or attorneys fees as a way of discouraging large insurance carriers from denying legitimate claims. [GN] MOUNT SINAI: McGrath Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara McGrath and Luis Boggiano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER OF FLORIDA, INC.., a/k/a MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 224965683 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., June 10, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's collection and disclosure of users' sensitive personal health information and electronic communications to Google without prior notice and consent, through tracking mechanisms embedded in the Defendant's website, www.msmc.com, in violation of the Florida Security of Communications Act ("FSCA"). Unbeknownst to Website visitors, Mount Sinai has knowingly implemented two tracking technologies owned by Google on its Website, the Google Analytics 4 Tracker and the DoubleClick Tracker (collectively, the "Trackers"). When Website visitors search for doctors or medical specialists, research treatment locations, seek information about specific medical services or conditions, or interact with other health-related content, Mount Sinai procures Google through the Trackers to intercept these electronic communications without consent. These electronic communications include the names, specialties, and locations of physicians or providers from whom visitors are seeking treatment; information regarding users' scheduling of appointments on the Website, users' phone calls to physicians or providers; communications concerning the types of medical services or procedures visitors are seeking; and user's search queries entered into the Website's search bar. This interception of private electronic communications occurs without appropriate notice to visitors and without obtaining their consent, in violation of the FSCA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been patients of Mount Sinai. The Defendant is a Florida corporation that does business as Mount Sinai Medical Center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle Shamberg, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 872-215-6205 Email: katrina@csclassactions.com kyle@csclassactions.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. Teresita T. Mercado, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Phone: (602) 762-2661 Email: don@donbivens.com teresita@donbivens.com NAE EDISON: Covington Sues Over Unlawful Overtime Pay Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ SHAQUANA COVINGTON, individually and for others similarly situated v. NAE EDISON, LLC d/b/a EDISON HOME HEALTH CARE, Case No. 1:25-cv-02980-JAM (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Defendant under under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Covington is a home health assistant employed by Defendant. Since she started in 2019, Defendant has paid Plaintiff under its straight time for overtime pay scheme. The scheme violates the FLSA and NYLL by depriving its straight time employees of the "time and a half" overtime premium they are owed for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. In addition, the Defendant does not provide Plaintiff and its other straight time employees with accurate, complete, and/or compliant pay statements, as required by NYLL, says the suit. NAE Edison is a home care services agency based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE: Carter Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Neurological Institute of Savannah & Center for Spine P.C., et al. The case is styled as Tonya S. Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Petitioner v. The Neurological Institute of Savannah & Center for Spine P.C., Defendant/Respondent, Case No. SPCV25-00833-WA (Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty., June 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Damages. The Neurosurgical & Spine Institute of Savannah -- https://neurologicalinstitute.com/ -- is one of the largest private neurosurgical practices on the east coast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Anthony Husted, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK ANTHONY HUSTED 591 Riverland Dr. Charleston, SC NEW YORK HEALTH: Vaca Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Marvin Vaca, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals v. NEW YORK HEALTH & HOSPITALS CORPORATION and DIVERSE LYNX, Case No. 1:25-cv-04804 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025), under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff was required to be paid his regular hourly rate for all hours worked and overtime pay at the statutory rate of time and one -half times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff's paychecks routinely did not reflect all of his weekly hours worked. The Plaintiff was regularly paid less than the number of regular and overtime hours he worked each week. The Defendants' violations against Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the NYLL Class Plaintiffs have been willful in that Defendants recklessly disregarded the requirements of the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Diverse Lynx and H+H as Operational Site Lead, primarily at the Roosevelt Hotel HERRC. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation is the largest municipal health care delivery system in the United States.[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 NEWREZ LLC: Megliorino Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Sam Megliorino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NEWREZ LLC, Case No. CIVSB2510259 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 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01423. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his mortgage loan (secured by his primary residence) is serviced by Newrez and was subject to the unlawful application of late fees to monthly mortgage payments made by Plaintiff between July and August 2024. The Plaintiff alleges two causes of action in the Complaint: Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Violation of the "Unlawful" prong of the California Unfair Practices Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie R. Trotter, Esq. Joshua G. Simon, Esq. Sameer Hussain, Esq. CALL & JENSEN A Professional Corporation 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 717-3000 Email: jtrotter@calljensen.com jsimon@calljensen.com shussain@calljensen.com OLD POINT: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Townebank ---------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Old Point Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: OPOF), relating to the proposed merger with TowneBank. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of Old Point will elect to receive $41.00 in cash or 1.1400 shares of TowneBank common stock for each share of Old Point outstanding common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 2, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/old-point-financial-corporation-opof/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- ProAssurance Corporation (NYSE: PRA), relating to the proposed merger with The Doctors Company. Under the terms of the agreement, ProAssurance stockholders will receive $25.00 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 24, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/proassurance-corporation-pra/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- SpringWorks Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SWTX), relating to the proposed merger with Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Under the terms of the agreement, SpringWorks shareholders will have the right to receive $47.00 in cash per share of SpringWorks stock held. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 26, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/springworks-therapeutics-inc-swtx/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Flowserve Corporation (NYSE: FLS) related to its merger with Chart Industries, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Flowserve shareholders will own approximately 46.5% of the combined company. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/flowserve-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle Investor Suit for $39MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that online residential real estate platform Opendoor (OPEN.O), has agreed to pay $39 million to resolve a securities lawsuit accusing it of duping investors about the capabilities of proprietary pricing technology it uses to buy and sell homes. Lawyers representing Opendoor investors filed the preliminary settlement, on Friday, June 13, in the federal court in Arizona. The deal requires approval by U.S. District Judge Michael Liburdi. Opendoor, founded in 2014, markets itself as a fast, reliable platform for Americans to buy and sell homes. Investors sued the company in 2022, claiming it failed to disclose that its pricing algorithms could not adjust to changing real estate market conditions. Opendoor and its lawyers at A&O Shearman did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and neither did attorneys for the plaintiffs. San Francisco-based Opendoor denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. The company said in a court filing it was settling to avoid the expense, risk and uncertainty of further litigation. The company in May reported $1.2 billion in revenue for the first quarter, with 2,946 total homes sold. The plaintiffs in a court filing said Opendoor misleadingly portrayed the company "as a tech disruptor that used AI-powered algorithms to buy and sell homes more profitably and efficiently than other traditional real estate companies." Opendoor instead relied on an undisclosed human-driven process for pricing houses that made the platform "just as susceptible to changing economic conditions as any other traditional real estate company," according to the plaintiffs. Opendoor's stock price dropped more than 94% from its December 2020 initial offering to November 2022, investors alleged. In their new filing, the plaintiffs called the settlement amount "a prompt and substantial tangible recovery." Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they would ask a judge to award them legal fees of up to 30% of the settlement, or $11.7 million. The case is In re Opendoor Technologies Inc Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, No. 2:22-CV-01717-MTL. For plaintiffs: Michael Canty and James Christie of Labaton Keller Sucharow For Opendoor: Lyle Roberts of A&O Shearman [GN] PAYPAL INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Investors' Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- TradingView reports that PayPal has requested the court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by investors. The court will determine whether the case proceeds. Court: D. New Jersey Case: 3:22-CV-05864 What is this lawsuit about? On February 1, 2022, PayPal released disappointing full-year 2021 results, revealing only 49 million net new active accounts (NNAs), falling short of its 50 million guidance. The Company admitted that 4.5 million of these accounts were likely illegitimately created through incentive campaigns. As a result, PayPal announced a strategic pivot away from such promotions and drastically reduced its 2022 account growth forecast to 15–20 million, also retracting its 750 million medium-term user target. Following this, PayPal's stock fell nearly 25% on February 2, 2022, wiping out about $50 billion in market capitalization. Then, on October 4, 2022, shareholders filed a claim against PayPal. What can you do to recover your losses now? We're keeping track of all updates and will notify PYPL investors about potential recovery. More than 600 companies are currently facing securities class action lawsuits, and over 100 are already paying settlements. Connect your brokerage account to automatically check which ones you may have missed. [GN] PGA TOUR: Faces Class Action Over Video Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael McCann, writing for Sportico, reports that the list of sports companies sued for sharing users' data with Meta grew last Friday, June 13, when Tampa, Fla., resident David Britt filed a complaint in a Florida federal court against the PGA Tour. Britt says the PGA Tour disclosed his personal viewing information without his consent. The PGA Tour joins the NBA, NFL, Learfield, Bleacher Report, Paramount Global (247 Sports), NBC Sports and Baseball America, among other big names in sports, that are accused of violating the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (VPPA). The VPPA makes it illegal for a video tape service provider to knowingly disclose a consumer's personally identifiable information to a third party. The VPPA is sometimes called the "Bork Bill" because it was a legislative response to the leaking of Judge Robert Bork's video rental history while he was a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. Through Brian Levin and other attorneys, Britt contends that when a PGATour.com visitor clicks on and requests a video, the name of the video and user information is shared with Meta -- and this sharing allegedly occurs without consent or notification. Britt, who has a Facebook account, says he subscribed to PGATour.com from 2022 until the day he sued, and that he became a subscriber by providing his name, email address and other personal information. Britt seeks for his case to be certified as a class action on behalf of Americans who subscribed to PGATour.com and obtained prerecorded video materials or services through a browser while being logged into their Facebook account from June 13, 2023, to the present. PGATour.com, like many sports websites, allegedly uses pixel tracking cookies. The VPPA calls for damages of $2,500, but that modest figure becomes much more threatening in a class action; Britt argues his class would have "thousands (and likely millions)" of people. A million people suing for $2,500 makes a class action potentially worth, at least in theory, $2.5 billion. The PGA Tour will answer the complaint and seek its dismissal. Expect the Tour to rely on arguments raised by other defendants in VPPA cases. They insist the Reagan-era VPPA has nothing to do with Facebook cookies -- it concerns video rental history and, as amended in 2013, the "liking" and sharing of online movies via social media platforms. The defendants also contend they're not in possession of Facebook data and that cookies transmit the data through internet browsers, which are outside of websites' control. Also stressed: Even if a sports website could be described as a conduit for unauthorized sharing, the VPPA prohibits disclosures that are made "knowingly," not inadvertently or even recklessly. VPPA litigation against sports companies has yielded conflicting outcomes over the last year. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with Paramount that watching sports videos on sports news-oriented websites doesn't make the viewer a 'consumer' within the meaning of the VPPA. The VPPA, the Sixth Circuit reasoned, contemplates more affirmative steps, namely buying, renting or subscribing to audio-visual content. As a result, merely signing up for fan content offered through a league or website newsletter would fall short. But in a case involving the NBA as a defendant, the Second Circuit found a user who subscribes to an NBA.com newsletter can be a consumer within the meaning of the VPPA based on the language of the statute. The NBA is a key player in how VPPA litigation will play out. The league petitioned the Supreme Court earlier this year to review its VPPA litigation, urging the justices to consider the presence of conflicting case law among the federal circuits on VPPA and the potentially far-reaching consequences of liability for websites that use cookies. The petition is currently pending before the Court. [GN] PHYSICIANS TO WOMEN: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $918,510 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $918,510 settlement is set to resolve a class action lawsuit filed against Physicians to Women and Mid-Atlantic Women's Care over an April 2023 data breach that gave unauthorized third parties access to patients' personal information. The Physicians to Women and Mid-Atlantic Women's Care class action settlement received preliminary court approval on May 12, 2025 and covers any U.S. resident identified by the defendants as having had their information accessed during the data breach. The court-approved website for the Physicians to Women and Mid-Atlantic Women's Care settlement can be found at PTWAndMAWCSettlement.com. Settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form may receive up to $10,000 in compensation for out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach that occurred between April 4, 2023 and seven days after the settlement notice is officially issued to class members. Covered out-of-pocket data breach losses include: -- Expenses resulting from the data breach incident; -- Unreimbursed bank fees; -- Long-distance phone and cellphone charges if charged by the minute; -- Data expenses charged based on the amount of data used; -- Postage and/or gasoline for local travel; -- Credit report or monitoring fees; and -- Identity theft insurance products purchased because of the data breach. Out-of-pocket loss compensation provided by the class action may be adjusted on a pro rata basis depending on the total number of valid claims that are filed, the settlement website states. Claimants may also receive a pro-rata portion, or equal share, of the remainder of the $918,510 settlement. The settlement also affords two years of one-bureau credit monitoring services, medical monitoring and identity protection services to all class members who submit a valid and timely claim form. To file a claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in with the unique Class Member ID available in their settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the form. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 9, 2025. There will be a hearing on September 2, 2025 to determine whether the class action settlement will receive final approval from the court. Compensation will begin to be dispensed only if final court approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The class action lawsuit against Physicians to Women and Mid-Atlantic Women's Care alleged that unauthorized third parties accessed customers' sensitive information -- including names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth and medical data -- during a data breach on or around April 4, 2023. The suit alleged the companies failed to maintain basic cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive data in their care. [GN] PINNACLE LIFE CAREERS: Hamilton Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinnacle Life Careers LLC. The case is styled as Reynaldo Hamilton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pinnacle Life Careers LLC doing business as: Pinnacle Life Group, Case No. 6:25-cv-01000 (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. Pinnacle Life Careers LLC doing business as Pinnacle Life Group -- https://www.thepinnaclelifegroup.com/ -- provides insurance solutions and resources for agent growth, emphasizing a people-over-profit philosophy.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Noguchi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Procter & Gamble. The case is styled as Eri Noguchi, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. The Procter & Gamble, Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2025-0007940 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil PI/PD/WD (Other)." The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] R.R. DONNELLEY: Hoppe Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA & WWPCL ------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN HOPPE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00839-BBC (E.D. Wisc., June 12, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. Accordingly, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift differentials, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated are current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of the Defendant. The Defendant is a commercial printer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com REDDIT INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Reddit, Inc. (NYSE: RDDT) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Reddit, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/reddit-inc-securities-fraud-class-action. Investors have until August 18, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased Reddit securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned Tamraz, Jr. v. Reddit, Inc., at al., No. 25-cv-05144. Why was Reddit Sued for Securities Fraud? Reddit owns and operates the eponymous social news aggregation, forum, and social media platform. Reddit receives a significant portion of its user traffic from individuals seeking answers to questions using Google Search. The complaint alleges that Reddit misrepresented and downplayed the impact that Google's use of Artificial Intelligence ("AI") technology in Google's search results had on Reddit's user growth. In truth, Google's use of AI dented Reddit's user growth by eliminating the need for individuals to visit and click through to Reddit to get answers to their questions. Rather, the answers appeared through Google's AI search results. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On May 1, 2025, Reddit reported a significant slowdown in daily active user growth. On this news, the price of Reddit stock declined $4.96 per share, or more than 4%, from $118.79 per share on May 1, 2025, to $113.83 per share on May 2, 2025. Then, on May 21, 2025, Wall Street analyst Baird cut its Reddit stock price target over concerns that Google's AI capabilities are stifling Reddit's user growth. On this news, the price of Reddit stock fell $9.79 per share, or over 9%, from $105.64 per share on May 20, 2025, to $95.85 per share on May 21, 2025. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/reddit-inc-securities-fraud-class-action. What Can You Do? If you invested in Reddit you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/reddit-inc-securities-fraud-class-action Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/reddit-inc-securities-fraud-class-action [GN] RIO TINTO: Settles Mongolian Mine Class Action Suit for $214-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Ker, writing for Financial Review, reports that Rio Tinto will pay $214 million to settle a long-running class action brought by US investors who claimed losses caused by the mining group's management of its giant Oyu Tolgoi copper project in Mongolia. Florida hedge fund Pentwater Capital Management and other former shareholders in Canadian company Turquoise Hill Resources (TRQ) will receive payment from Rio, under the terms of the proposed $US138.7 million ($213.6 million) settlement that both parties have put before the Southern District Court of New York for approval. Pentwater had accused Rio of making materially false and misleading statements about progress on construction of the $US7.06 billion underground copper mine, and of being too slow to disclose delays and cost blowouts. It took two years longer than expected to build and costs grew by an extra $US1.7 billion. Those changes, it was argued, caused financial stress for TRQ, which was Rio's partner in the mine. The settlement will end disputes over the mine's construction. The Oyu Tolgoi copper mine has been a problem child for Rio. The Mongolian government in May filed a lawsuit against Rio in a British court, where the latter was accused of corruption and political bribery. Rio and officials in Mongolia's capital Ulaanbaatar have squabbled for almost two decades over how to share Oyu Tolgoi's wealth. Separately, Rio and the Mongolian government remain in arbitration over at least $US438 million of disputed taxes. The British High Court lawsuit is designed to help Mongolia argue its case in the arbitration by compelling the company to produce evidence. The world's second-largest mining company, will be keen to resolve the many outstanding cases involving the mine. The settlement of the class action in the New York court brought by US investors after five years of fighting is a step in that direction. Rio agreed to settle on the basis that it would admit no fault. The class action claimed that investors bought TRQ shares at artificially inflated prices because Rio had not been sufficiently forthcoming with information about the project's problems. "Defendants are entering into this stipulation solely to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, and expense of continued litigation and trial," Rio said in the settlement documents. Lawyers arguing the case on behalf of the investor class proposed that 13 per cent of the settlement fund -- or about $27.7 million -- be reserved for their own fees. Investors in the class action are expected to receive about US21¢ for every share they held in TRQ. Rio consolidated ownership of TRQ in 2022 at a price of $C43 per share. That means the value gained by investors who fought Rio in the five-year class action is tantamount to a less than a 1 per cent boost to the $US3.3 billion takeover price paid by Rio in 2022. Rio said the US21¢ payout was "appropriate and reasonable terms". The settlement would also end all claims against former Rio chief executive Jean-Sebastien Jacques, who was named as a defendant alongside Rio. The class action caused embarrassment for Rio with troves of internal emails exposed. The evidence presented to the court over the past year revealed that Rio held internal crisis meetings to discuss delays on the project in the same week it told investors the project was on time and budget. The court was also told that a senior Rio executive asked one of his direct reports to limit the flow of bad news about the project. The payout follows Rio's agreement to pay $US28 million in 2023 to settle a strikingly similar case, where it was accused by US market regulators of being too slow to disclose problems on an investment in Mozambique coal. [GN] S. DAVID KOZICH: Frongello Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joyce Karen Frongello, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest and Administrator of the Estate of JOYCE CARLA GRIER, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S. DAVID KOZICH, An Individual; CIVIL ATTORNEYS GROUP P.C., A California Corporation a.k.a. CIVIL ATTORNEYS GROUP, LLC; EQUITY LAW GROUP, A Business of Unknown Form; EYAD YASER ABDELJAWAD, An Individual; BRIDGEPOINT LAW GROUP APC, A California Corporation; BRYCEN DEAN BRADFIELD, An Individual; SHORELINE SALES LLC, A California Limited Liability Company; BRADFIELD HOLDINGS CORP, A California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25,inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01239492-CU-PN-NJC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05181. The Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") seeks damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief from Defendant Wells Fargo in connection with the following alleged causes of action: Financial Elder Abuse, Conversion, Civil Conspiracy, Violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent ("UCL") Business Practices (California Business & Professions Code Section 17200).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amanda Groves, Esq. Lara Markarian, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Phone: +1 213-615-1700 Facsimile: +1 213-615-1750 Email: agroves@winston.com lmarkarian@winston.com SELECTQUOTE INC: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of SelectQuote, Inc. (NYSE: SLQT) resulting from allegations that SelectQuote may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased SelectQuote securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=39510 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On May 1, 2025, the United States Department of Justice published an announcement entitled "The United States Files False Claims Act Complaint Against Three National Health Insurance Companies and Three Brokers Alleging Unlawful Kickbacks and Discrimination Against Disabled Americans." The release stated, in pertinent part, that SelectQuote had been charged and that "from 2016 through at least 2021, the defendant insurers paid hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to the defendant brokers in exchange for enrollments into the insurers' Medicare Advantage plans." On this news, SelectQuote stock fell 19.2% on May 1, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SERVICEAIDE INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Gordon Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JASON GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERVICEAIDE, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-04974 (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and other personally identifiable information (PII) of 483,126 individuals, including, but not limited to: name, Social Security number, date of birth, medical record number, patient account number, medical/health information, health insurance information, prescription/treatment information, clinical information, provider name, provider location, and email/username and password. Between Sept. 19, 2024, and Nov. 5, 2024, certain patient information within Serviceaide's Catholic Health Elasticsearch database was made publicly available (the Data Breach). According to the complaint, the Defendant did not learn that the information was publicly disclosed until Nov. 15, 2024. The Defendant emailed the Plaintiff a "Notice of Data Breach" on May 9, 2025. Omitted from the notice letter were the details of how the Data Breach occurred, the reason for the six month delay in providing notice, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. The Defendant offers digital service management solutions, primarily focusing on IT Service Management (ITSM) and Enterprise Service Management. The Defendant provides information technology support management services to Catholic Health, a six-hospital healthcare system. Defendant requires access to the electronic protected health information of Catholic Health’s patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC P.O. Box 12174 San Diego, CA 92112 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 Facsimile: (800) 867-6779 E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com SYSCO CORP: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $2.3MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Sysco agreed to a $2.3 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to protect consumers from a 2023 data breach. The Sysco settlement benefits individuals who reside in the United States to whom Sysco sent notice of the cybersecurity event in or around May 2023. According to a class action lawsuit, Sysco could have prevented the 2023 data breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures but failed to do so, resulting in a cybersecurity event. Plaintiffs in the case say they had to spend time and money to protect themselves from identity theft and fraud and are now at an increased risk for future identity theft and fraud as a result of the breach. Sysco is a food distribution company that provides food, equipment and supplies to restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities, hotels and other customers. Sysco has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $2.3 million to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Sysco data breach settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach. This reimbursement includes unreimbursed costs, losses or expenditures incurred as a result of identity theft or fraud, falsified tax returns or other possible misuse of personal information. In addition to expense reimbursement, class members can also receive a residual cash payment from the settlement. Residual cash payments are currently estimated to be between $100 and $200, but may be as high as $599. All class members are eligible for two years of free credit monitoring services. These services include dark web scanning, identity theft insurance, real-time credit monitoring with the three major credit bureaus and access to fraud resolution agents. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 8, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Sysco data breach settlement is scheduled for Oct. 9, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 8, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who reside in the United States and to whom Sysco sent notice of the cybersecurity event in or around May 2023. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in out-of-pocket losses and a residual cash payment of up to $599. Proof of Purchase Receipts, invoices, account statements, tax forms, IRS letters, legal documents, financial forms and other documentation of data breach-related losses. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 09/08/2025 Case Name Trottier, et al. v. Sysco Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-01818, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Final Hearing 10/09/2025 Settlement Website SyscoCybersecuritySettlement.com Claims Administrator Sysco Cybersecurity Event Litigation Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 (833) 420-3835 Class Counsel Patrick A. Barthle II MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP Gary Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Defense Counsel Kelsey M. Machado Ian S. Shelton BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP [GN] TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Actos Class Action Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MetNews reports that a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that certification was properly granted to a class of third-party payors in an action alleging that the drug makers behind the diabetes medication Actos committed fraud and violated racketeering laws by concealing an alleged increased risk of bladder cancer, causing the plaintiffs to pay for more prescriptions than would have otherwise been issued. Circuit Judge Eric D. Miller penned a dissent to Monday's, June 16, memorandum decision upholding the first-of-its-kind class certification in an action against pharmaceutical companies brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), arguing that the case relies on faulty statistics to do a creative end-run around the general rule that fraud claims are not amenable to class-wide resolution. He wrote: "In this putative class action, plaintiffs allege that Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited and Eli Lilly and Company fraudulently concealed the risks of a drug that they distributed. An essential element of any fraud claim is reliance on the defendant's allegedly fraudulent statements. Because reliance must ordinarily be established with evidence particular to each plaintiff, fraud claims are not normally suitable for class actions -- at least outside of the securities context, in which the fraud-on-the-market theory allows courts to presume reliance on the part of all purchasers of publicly traded securities." Miller added: "If plaintiffs were patients who used the defendants' drug, or physicians who prescribed it, they would not be able to bring fraud claims in a class action. But the lawyers who brought this case have tried to circumvent that limitation: Rather than suing on behalf of those directly injured by the alleged fraud, they have instead sued on behalf of third-party payors who reimbursed the cost of drugs that were prescribed and used by others. In an effort to bring what is effectively a fraud-on the-market class action, plaintiffs rely on supposed statistical proof to establish that the prescriptions they reimbursed were issued in reliance on the defendants' alleged fraud." Putative Class Action The question arose after Annie M. Snyder, an Actos user in San Bernardino County, and three other consumers, filed a putative class action complaint, together with third-party payor Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund, against Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, the developer of the drug, and Eli Lilly, which agreed to help market the medication. They asserted that the defendants failed to disclose a known risk of bladder cancer. In May 2023, District Court Judge John W. Holcomb of the Central District of California declined to certify the proposed California consumer class but did certify a national class of third-party payors, appointing Painters as class representative. Takeda and Eli Lilly appealed the order as to the third-party class. At issue is whether Holcomb properly found that common issues predominate and that class-wide relief is superior, as required for certification, in light of RICO's standing requirement that a plaintiff show actual injury. The plaintiffs relied on a report by UCLA Professor of Health Policy and Management William S. Comanor which considered a regression on sales following a 2010 announcement by the Food and Drug Administration that it was conducting a review on Actos based on an apparent increased risk of bladder cancer. Comanor extrapolated an estimate of the lowered number of prescriptions that would have been written each month if the purported dangers had been known. In the memorandum opinion, signed by Senior Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas and by Senior District Court Judge Lee Hyman Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation, the majority found that "the Comanor Report's 'market-share extrapolation' analysis does not make the report insufficient to show classwide causation and injury" and wrote: "Comanor used regression models to show that the decline in prescriptions was caused by the failure to disclose." No Rigorous Analysis Miller faulted Holcomb with failing to conduct the "requisite rigorous analysis of plaintiffs' statistical theory" and said that if he had sone so, he "would have determined that the theory fails to establish reliance on a class-wide basis," adding: "Because individual questions predominate and class adjudication of this case is unlikely to be workable, I would reverse the grant of class certification." He pointed out that the plaintiffs have attempted to establish injury by showing reliance on the defendants' misrepresentations about the drug's safety and that "they must do so with common proof" in order to make class certification appropriate. Noting that the matter involved a "battle of the experts," he remarked that, in such a case, "the district court's rigorous analysis cannot stop with finding plaintiffs' expert evidence to be admissible" and argued that Holcomb did not weigh the conflicting evidence between the reports submitted by both sides to resolve the disputes between them. Critical Objections The jurist pointed to a failure to "grapple with. . . critical objections raised by Takeda and Lilly, each of which casts doubt on whether plaintiffs can establish the effects of the alleged fraud by common proof." He remarked: "[T]he defendants' expert witness. . . explained why [Comanor's] approach is inadequate to show but-for causation: Comanor's data consists of a single time series of observations between October 2010 and December 2013, but one cannot use such data to identify causal effects because there is no way to separate the effect of the. . . FDA announcement from the effect of other events, such as the introduction of new treatment options, the launch of generic drugs, and changes in drug prices. Even if Comanor had included all possible confounding factors as independent variables in his analysis . . . his single time-series regression cannot conclusively show and isolate the causal effect of the bladder cancer risk. Furthermore, a regression performed on a single 39-month time series after the relevant class period does not give rise to an inference of causation during the 134-month class period." Acknowledging that a similar analysis might be sufficient to prove causation on a class-wide basis under different circumstances, he said that "it does not follow that this regression analysis is sufficient to prove causation." He declared that this failure is "fatal to class certification, as the only common proof that plaintiffs offered to prove injury and causation was Comanor's expert evidence." Feasible Exclusion Method Miller added that "even accepting Comanor's regression analysis, plaintiffs lack a feasible method of identifying those class members who suffered no injury," and noted: "Here again, plaintiffs rely on Comanor's analysis. Using his estimate that 56 percent of Actos prescriptions were fraudulently induced -- and, thus, that 44 percent were not -- he calculated that 'the probability of a [third-party payor] paying for one or more fraudulently induced prescriptions in a randomly selected sample of five' is 98 percent. . . Having defined the class as those third-party payors who 'purchased at least five independent prescriptions of Actos,' plaintiffs infer that no more than two percent of class members were uninjured." Rejecting his analysis, the judge reasoned: "Comanor's calculation is correct as far as it goes, but it depends entirely on the assumption that each prescription is statistically independent of the others -- in other words, that the fact that one of a third-party payor's prescriptions was fraudulently induced does not increase the likelihood that its other prescriptions were also fraudulently induced. Only on that assumption can one validly multiply the probability of fraudulent inducement of individual prescriptions to arrive at an overall probability that a third-party payor was injured." He pointed out that Takeda and Lilly "advance individualized affirmative defenses based on physicians' prescribing decisions" and that two medical professionals who treated individual plaintiffs in the failed consumer class testified at depositions that they continued to prescribe Actos even after the cancer risks were disclosed. Under these circumstances, he said: "[E]ven if Comanor's statistical methodology could show causation and demonstrate that all but a de minimis number of class members were injured, Takeda and Lilly would still be entitled to present and litigate defenses to the claims of individual class members." The case is Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, 23-55742. [GN] UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Class Suit Over Consumers' Junk Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a customer filed a class action lawsuit against Unilever United States. Why: The plaintiff claims Unilever sneakily adds junk fees to consumers' shopping carts on Olly.com. Where: The Olly junk fees class action was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Unilever United States sneakily adds junk fees to consumers' shopping carts on Olly.com. Plaintiff Amanda Poore filed the Olly class action lawsuit against Unilever United States on May 19 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Unilever, the owner of the Olly brand, has been deceiving consumers by adding hidden junk fees to their shopping carts on the Olly website. Poore claims that the brand, which specializes in vitamins and supplements, advertises free or flat-rate shipping for orders over $49 but surreptitiously adds an "Order Protection" fee during the checkout process. The lawsuit alleges that the fees are deceptive and unfair, as they are sneaked into consumers' shopping carts without their knowledge or consent. The fees are described as "Order Protection," but Poore argues that they provide no added value to consumers and are essentially an additional shipping cost, rendering the promise of free or flat-rate shipping false. Olly website's checkout process ‘intentionally designed to go unnoticed,' lawsuit says Poore claims that the Olly website's checkout process is intentionally designed to go unnoticed by consumers. The lawsuit alleges that the fee is added in small print, with an optional hyperlink to "Continue Without Checkout+" barely visible, making it difficult for consumers to opt out. As a result, many consumers are unaware that the fee has been added or believe it is mandatory, the lawsuit states. The lawsuit further alleges that Unilever's practice of adding these junk fees gives the company an unfair advantage over competitors who fairly disclose their shipping charges. Poore claims that the deceptive fees are designed to increase profitability by misrepresenting the true shipping costs to consumers. The complaint cites a recent media report highlighting the problem of hidden fees in online shopping, noting that some brands automatically add optional coverage to orders, making the fees appear mandatory. Poore's lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers who paid an "Order Protection" fee or similar fee for a purchase from Olly. She is seeking certification of the Olly class action lawsuit, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, True Classic Tees is also facing a class action over a "package protection & sustainability fee" where the optional hyperlink to "remove" the fee is likewise intentionally designed to go unnoticed. The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Sophia G. Gold and Amanda J. Rosenberg of KalielGold PLLC. The Olly junk fees class action is Poore v. Unilever United States, Case No. 4:25-cv-04294-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. [GN] UNITED STATES: Judge OKs Class Action Status in Transgenders' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amy Harmon, writing for The New York Times, reports that a federal judge in Boston granted class-action status to transgender and nonbinary Americans on Tuesday, July 17, in a lawsuit challenging a U.S. State Department policy that requires passports to reflect only the holder's sex recorded on their original birth certificate. The order extends a preliminary injunction blocking the State Department from enforcing the policy against six plaintiffs to apply to all class members who apply for or update passports while the case proceeds. In the earlier order from April, U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick concluded that the passport policy likely violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee because it discriminates based on sex and is "rooted in irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans." The State Department filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction in June. The government maintains that it has a strong interest in passports that accurately reflect the holder's sex. The State Department adopted the new policy earlier this year to comply with an executive order from President Trump directing all government agencies to limit official recognition of transgender identity and mandating that federal documents reflect what it termed the "immutable biological classification as either male or female." In court documents, plaintiffs argued that a mismatch between the sex listed on their passport and their gender identity puts them at risk of suspicion and hostility that other Americans do not face. During the first weeks of Mr. Trump's administration, several plaintiffs received passports with an "F" or "M" marker contrary to the one they had requested. Another learned that selecting an "X" marker, indicating a nonbinary gender identity, was no longer an option, though it had been allowed since 2022. The government argued against certifying trans and nonbinary passport holders as a legal class in the case, contending that gender identity is subjective and that a class-wide injunction would create an undue administrative burden. Judge Kobick, who was nominated by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., found that those claims did not outweigh significant harm faced by transgender and nonbinary passport holders. She noted that plaintiffs in the case had described being forced to "effectively 'out' themselves every time they presented their passports," leading to anxiety and fear safety fears. "These are the types of injuries that cannot adequately be measured or compensated by money damages or a later-issued remedy," she wrote. [GN] UROGEN PHARMA: Cockrell Sues Over Breaches of Securities Law ------------------------------------------------------------ ADAM COCKRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UROGEN PHARMA LTD., ELIZABETH BARRETT, CHRIS DEGNAN, and DON KIM, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-06088 (D.N.J., May 29, 2025) pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired UroGen securities between July 27, 2023 and May 15, 2025, inclusive. Throughout the said period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the ENVISION clinical study was not designed to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness of UGN-102 because it lacked a concurrent control arm; (2) as a result, the Company would have difficulty demonstrating that the duration of response endpoint was attributable to UGN-102; (3) UroGen failed to heed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's warnings about the study design used to support a drug application for UGN-102; (4) as a result of the foregoing, there was a substantial risk that the new drug application for UGN-102 would not be approved; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Headquartered in Princeton, NJ, UroGen Pharma Ltd. engages in the development and commercialization of solutions for specialty cancers. The company's ordinary shares trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol "URGN." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: decklund@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com - and - Robert V. Prongay Charles H. Linehan GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 VERA BRADLEY: Rosen Laws Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Vera Bradley, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRA) resulting from allegations that Vera Bradley may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Vera Bradley securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=40454 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On June 11, 2025, Vera Bradley announced its financial results for the first quarter of the 2026 fiscal year. Commenting on the results, Vera Bradley's CEO stated that "[o]ur first quarter results were disappointing as top line and profitability trends from the previous several quarters continued." On this news, the price of Vera Bradley stock fell 19% on June 11, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by Law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WATERWIPES USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Baby Wipes' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that a California consumer is suing WaterWipes (USA) Inc. Why: The plaintiff says the company falsely advertises its baby wipes as plastic-free when they contain microplastics. Where: The WaterWipes class action was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges that WaterWipes falsely advertises its baby wipes as plastic-free when they contain significant levels of microplastics. Plaintiff Devery Merlo filed the class action complaint against WaterWipes on June 2 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, WaterWipes falsely advertises its baby wipes as essentially plastic-free despite containing significant levels of microplastics. Microplastics 387 times above control limits, WaterWipes lawsuit claims However, independent testing revealed the presence of microplastics in the product at levels 387 times higher than the control, the lawsuit states. This alleged misrepresentation has misled environmentally conscious consumers, the plaintiff alleges. Microplastics, defined as plastics less than five millimeters in length, have been found in various human organs and are linked to health issues, such as cancer and weakened immune systems, the lawsuit states. The plaintiff argues that WaterWipes capitalized on growing consumer concerns about plastic pollution and health, particularly among parents of newborns, to capture market share. The lawsuit alleges that WaterWipes' false claims violate consumer protection laws, breach express warranties and result in unjust enrichment. Merlo says she purchased WaterWipes' baby wipes in 2024, believing they were plastic-free and pure. She claims she paid a premium for the product based on these representations and would not have purchased it had she known it contained microplastics. The lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers who purchased the product in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period. In related news, a class action lawsuit filed in California federal court against Kimberly‑Clark, alleging that Huggies Simply Clean Fragrance Free baby wipes contain unsafe levels of PFAS "forever chemicals" despite being marketed as "simply clean," "gentle" and safe for infants. What do you think of the allegations in this WaterWipes class action? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by P. Renée Wicklund of Richman Law & Policy. The WaterWipes false advertising class action lawsuit is Merlo v. WaterWipes (USA) Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-04640, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] ZUFFA LLC: Davis Sues Over Breaches of the Sherman Act ------------------------------------------------------ Phil Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zuffa LLC, TKO Group Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC), and Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00946 (D. Nev., May 29, 2025) arises from Defendants' alleged anticompetitive scheme that violated and continues to violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The UFC maintains monopoly power in the output market for Promotion of live Professional mixed martial arts (MMA) Bouts, and monopsony power in the input market for Professional MMA Fighter services. The UFC's scheme impairs Professional MMA Promotions like PFL in their ability to attract a critical mass of top-level MMA Fighters necessary to compete with the UFC at the top tier of the sport of Professional MMA, and otherwise substantially forecloses competition in the relevant markets. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendants' continuing scheme, and to create conditions for free and fair competition among Professional MMA Promotions and among top-level MMA fighters, thereby benefiting Plaintiff and the class of non-UFC Professional MMA Fighters. Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, Zuffa LLC is engaged in the business of, among other things, promoting live Professional MMA Bouts in the United States and elsewhere, under the trade names of the Ultimate Fighting Championship or UFC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Gayan, Esq. CLAGGETT & SYKES 4101 Meadows Lane, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89107 Telephone: (702) 333-7777 Facsimile: (702) 655-3763 E-mail: mike@claggettlaw.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michael Dell’Angelo, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net pmadden@bm.net - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla Gibboney, Esq. Robert C. Maysey, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 906-0684 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: jdavis@bm.net kgibboney@bm.net rmaysey@bm.net ********* 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 ***