250625.mbx

250625.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 25, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 126 Headlines 167 SHOPS FL: Faces Pardo Suit Over Disabled's Access to Properties 3D SYSTEMS: Faces Herbermann Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop A-1 COLLECTION: Fullmer Seeks to Amend Certified Class ABC COOLING: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Nielson Due May 26, 2026 AGILITI HEALTH: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Quiles Alleges ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Griffith Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois AMAZON.COM INC: Process for Sealing Confidential Docs Entered AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Faces Class Action Suit Over Interns' Wages AMERICAN NATIONAL: Bid to Initially OK Settlement Tossed AMERICAN NATIONAL: Wolf Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over App Store Crypto Scam APPLE INC: Feldt Suit Transferred to N.D. California ASHLEY ANN: Faces Bennett Suit Over Unfair Loan Interest Rates AYFAIR LLC: Atkinson Sues Over Unpaid Wages BAYMARK HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McDowell Says BFF FOOD: Faces Villa Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. BLUE CROSS: Wesco Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty BRAD RAFFENSPERGER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response BRADFORD HEALTH: Mcpherson Files Suit in N.D. Alabama BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Kapphahn Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota BRINKS NETWORK: Almonte Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma CIGNA GROUP: Adams Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Appeals Class Certification Order in Davis Suit CLUTCH INC: Soboleski Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages COINBASE INC: Faces Ramo Suit Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued Over Misleading "Free Shipping" Promise CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: W.D. Tex. Dismisses Consumer Class Suit CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod D4C DENTAL: Thompson Sues for Discrimination, Retaliation DELAWARE: Light Sues Over Nonpayment of Property's Public Use DELTA COUNTY, MI: Appeals Court Order in Klinter Class Suit DELTA COUNTY, MI: Appeals Ruling in Klinter Suit to Mich. Court DIASPORA TEA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Says DOCUSIGN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court EDGECO HOLDINGS: Witchko Sues Over Illegal Cash Sweep Programs EVERWISE CREDIT: Runnels Sues Over Disclosed Info to Third Parties FCA US: Parties Seek to Extend Certain Case Management Deadlines GATEWAY COMMUNITY: Brown-Hernandez Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. GENERAL MOTORS: $150MM Settlement in Del Valle Gets Initial Nod GIRL SCOUTS: Cookies Contain Toxins, Finkelstein Suit Alleges GROCERY DELIVERY: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia GRUNS NUTRITION: Gummies Lack Key Macronutrients, Kearins Alleges HARTZ HOTEL: Herrera Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store HERSHEY CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Labels HOSPITAL SISTERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Reset to August 15 IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT: Treitel Balks at Unprotected Info JACK'S EGGS: Cruz Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA JOHNSON HEALTH: Faces Douglas Class Suit Over BowFlex Recall JOHNSON PETROLEUM: Gas Station Has Access Barriers, Foster Says JPAY LLC: Zielinski Appeals Civil Rights Suit Order to 2nd Circuit KROGER CO: Antossyan Suit Removed to C.D. California LEE INTERPRISES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bangert Says LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, King Suit Claims LITTLE CAESAR: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing MANAGED CARE: Has Until July 24 to Oppose Class Cert Bid MASSACHUSETTS: Linardon Appeals ADA Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit MASSAWA RESTAURANT: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION: Campbell Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION: Grant Sues Over Data Breach META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tracking User Data METRO SERVICES: Wins Summary Judgment Bid on Several Claims MICHAEL BICKERS: Rhodes Seeks To Vacate Default Judgment Deadline MICHAEL KORS: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls MID-DELTA PROPERTIES: Wiggins Seeks Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT NATIONAL MORTGAGE: Appeals Court Clarifies Mortgage Refunds NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: LaGrassa Appeals Denied Alter Judgment Order NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE: Simmons Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. NEW AMERICAN FUNDING: Ashworth Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida NEW AMERICAN: Parties in Ashworth Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines NIKE INC: Promotes Unregistered NFTs, Fernandez Suit Alleges NORTHWEST COMMUNITY: Vargas Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois NOW HEALTH: Faces Oh Suit Over Slack-Fill Non-GMO Dextrose Product O POSITIV INC: Mislabels URO Probiotic Capsules, Taylor Says ONPOINT COMMUNITY: $500K Settlement in Granados Gets Final Nod ORIGINAL FOOTWEAR: Butler Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA PA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Heilner Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Appeals Vacate Order in Fishon Class Suit PILGRIM SURF: Wills Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website POPSTROKE HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wilkinson Says POWER SECURITY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code PRECISION TAX: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Waudby Says PURE GREEN FRANCHISE: McGonigle Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida QSR NYC: Bada Seeks OT Wages for Fast Food Workers Under FLSA RALEY'S: Silva Suit Removed to E.D. California SAFE HARBOR: Miami Yacht Sues Over Inflated Customer Invoices SAN FRANCISCO, CA: J.T. Seeks to Certify Class SBG REVO: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Wills Suit Says SCHWEBEL BAKING: Shaffer Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Islas Files Suit in D. Massachusetts SILL INC: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SINAI I INC: Faces Stetsko Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. SKYSKOPES INC: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Ariz. SMG FOOD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ordono Extended to Sept. 8 STAPLES CONTRACT: Court Strikes Duplicative Bid to Certify Class STATE FARM: Parties Seek More to File Class Cert Briefing STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE: Cox Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania STEPHEN BRETT: Betts Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Fischer Due Dec. 1 TC HEARTLAND: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule TD AMERITRADE: Jacobs Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. TD AMERITRADE: Masud Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. TORQUE FITNESS: Fernandez Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers TRADERCODES LLC: Faces Wilson Suit for Invasion of Privacy VALVE CORPORATION: Welty Suit Removed to E.D. California VESTIS CORPORATION: Torres Sues Over Share Price Decline VIDA SHOES: Fernandez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Beecher Sues Over Defective Vehicles VSHRED LLC: Settles Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $4-Mil. WALGREEN CO: McGill Suit Removed to C.D. California WHITE FLOWER: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Fernandez Alleges XIAO-I CORP: Milev Appeals Ruling to N.Y. Appellate Division [] Mediators Resolving Complex Class Actions ********* 167 SHOPS FL: Faces Pardo Suit Over Disabled's Access to Properties ------------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 167 SHOPS FL LLC and BABY SUPERMARKET III INC. D/B/A BABY SUPERMARKET, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-22593 (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of their properties and businesses. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking, entrance access and path of travel, and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. 167 Shops FL LLC is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. Baby Supermarket III Inc., doing business as Baby Supermarket, is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com 3D SYSTEMS: Faces Herbermann Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARCEL F.M. HERBERMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3D SYSTEMS CORPORATION, JEFFREY A. GRAVES, and JEFFREY D. CREECH, Case No. 1:25-cv-00734-UNA (D. Del., June 13, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired 3D Systems securities between August 13, 2024 and May 12, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In March 2025, 3D Systems released its full-year 2025 guidance. Among other items, the Company projected revenue within the range of $420 million to $435 million, representing essentially flat to modest growth," "non-GAAP Gross Profit Margin within the range of 37% to 39%," "non-GAAP Operating Expense within the range of $200 million to $220 million," and "adjusted EBITDA to be break even or better in Q4 2025." Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that 3D Systems had understated the impact of weakened customer spending on the Company's business, while overstating its resilience in challenging industry conditions. On March 26, 2025, 3D Systems issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter (Q4) and full-year 2024. Among other items, 3D Systems reported Q4 non-GAAP earnings-per-share ("EPS") of -- $0.19, missing consensus estimates by $0.08 per share, and sales revenue of $111 million, representing a -3.4% year-over-year decline and missing consensus estimates by $4.17 million. Further, for full-year 2024, the Company reported sales of $440.1 million, a decrease of 10% compared to the prior year, driven by "lower hardware systems sales due to macroeconomic factors that are negatively impacting demand." Finally, 3D systems reported a "$9 million revenue reduction in Q4 driven by a change in accounting estimates for [the Company's] Regenerative Medicine program." The Company disclosed that "this change in estimate [was] related to the now anticipated use of pre-clinical human decedent testing, which led to refinement of the milestone technical criteria." On this news, 3D Systems' stock price fell $0.57 per share, or 20.96%, to close at $2.15 per share on March 27, 2025. Then, after the market closed on May 12, 2025, 3D Systems issued a press release announcing its financial results for the first quarter (Q1) of 2025. Among other items, 3D systems reported: revenue of $94.5 million, down 8% year-over-year and missing consensus estimates of $99.5 million; a net loss of $37 million, or $0.28 per share, more than doubling the $16 million loss reported in Q1 2024; an adjusted loss of $0.21 per share, deeper than consensus estimates of a loss of $0.14 per share; and adjusted EBITDA of a loss of $23.9 million, deepening from a $20.1 million loss in Q1 2024. The Company attributed its disappointing results, in part, to a decline in material sales, mostly due to inventory management issues in the dental portion of its Healthcare Solutions segment. 3D Systems also announced that it was withdrawing its full-year 2025 outlook, citing prolonged softness in customer capital spending and macroeconomic uncertainty. On this news, 3D Systems' stock price fell $0.68 per share, or 26.6%, to close at $1.87 per share on May 13, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. 3D Systems provides 3D printing and digital manufacturing solutions in North and South America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and Oceania. The Company earns revenue from the sale of products and services through its two operating segments: Healthcare Solutions and Industrial Solutions. The Healthcare Solutions segment includes dental, medical devices, personalized health services, and regenerative medicine (the "Regenerative Medicine Program"). The Regenerative Medicine Program focuses on "the use of additive manufacturing for human organ transplantation." Since 2018, 3D Systems has partnered with the biotechnology company United Therapeutics Corporation "with a long-term goal of developing the capability to 3D print lungs that will allow patients with end-stage lung disease to receive transplants that will enable them to enjoy long and active lives." The terms of the United Partnership include specific "milestone criteria" -- i.e., requirements that must be met for a stage in a development process to be considered completed. In late 2024, 3D Systems updated the United Partnership's milestone criteria in response to changes in testing methodology. The Company considers milestone criteria (and any updates thereto) when accounting for recognized revenue from the United Partnership. Specifically, the Company earns milestone payments based upon the achievement of agreed-upon contract objectives (i.e. milestones). Because these payments are contingent on future events, they generally represent a form of variable consideration. Under Accounting Standards Codification 606-10-32-5, the revenue recognition standard -- a uniform framework for recognizing revenue from contracts with customers—requires an entity to estimate the amount of variable consideration to which it will be entitled under a contract. Accordingly, as the United Partnership milestone criteria are updated, the Company must also update its estimates of the timing and probability that it will receive milestone payments when accounting for recognized revenue. 5. Over the past several years, reduced customer spending has resulted in weakened sales across the 3D printing industry. Nonetheless, 3D Systems has consistently maintained that "despite a challenging operating environment," it "remains optimistic about the future" given its "sequential recovery and continued momentum in [its] robust customer pipeline."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com A-1 COLLECTION: Fullmer Seeks to Amend Certified Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FULLMER, SEAN MCINTYRE, SABRINA PROVO, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals, v. A-1 COLLECTION AGENCY, LLC, AND MOAB VALLEY HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00143-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order amending the previously certified class into a settlement class. The Court has previously found that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) have been met. The proposed amendment into a settlement class is appropriate and meets the requirements of Rule 23(e). The proposed amendment to the existing class is appropriate in light of the settlement. The Plaintiffs filed this Action alleging that the Defendants publicly disclosed private information as part of their attempts to collect on medical debt, thereby violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, and common law. The Plaintiffs seek the following settlement class: All individuals against whom the Defendants filed a debt collection lawsuit in the State of Utah, where, as part of the lawsuit, Defendants publicly disclosed the debtor's social security number or protected health information, and where the disclosure was made between December 2, 2016, to the present. The Settlement Class does not include any individuals who died or filed for bankruptcy between the time of the alleged disclosure of private information and the time of settlement. The proposed definition for the settlement class is nearly identical to the class certified by the Court on July 6, 2023. The only difference is that the settlement class now excludes individuals who have died or filed for bankruptcy – individuals who would not have been entitled to a recovery anyway. Under the Settlement, Defendants will provide three years credit monitoring and payment of $900 to each class member. A-1 is a debt collection agency that specializes in purchasing and collecting overdue accounts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SWF4KH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Baczynski, Esq. BACZYNSKI LAW 136 W12300 S, Ste B Draper, UT 84020 Telephone: (708) 715-2234 E-mail: dan@bskilaw.com - and - Troy K. Walker, Esq. TROY K. WALKER, P.C. 136 W12300 S, Ste B Draper, UT 84020 Telephone: (801) 553-1700 The Defendants are represented by: Ronald F. Price, Esq. PRICE PARKINSON & KERR PLLC 5742 W, Harold Gatty Dr, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Telephone: (801) 530-2900 - and - Spencer W. Young, Esq. STRONG & HANI 102 South 200 EastSuite 800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 ABC COOLING: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Nielson Due May 26, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY NIELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ABC COOLING & HEATING SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00241-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 must be served by no later than June 21, 2025. 2. Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed by no later than Aug. 15, 2025. 3. Class certification discovery shall be completed by no later than March 3, 2026. 4. The motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than May 26, 2026. 5. Any opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than June 30, 2026. 6. Any reply brief in support of the motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than July 21, 2026. 7. The motion for class certification shall be heard on Aug. 5, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto. 8. A status conference to set further scheduling dates is set for Oct. 29, 2026. Telephonic appearances are approved; all parties appearing telephonically shall call (888) 557-8511, access code 6208204# at the date and time for the conference. By no later Oct. 22, 2026, the parties shall file and email to skoorders@caed.uscourts.gov in MS Word format a report providing (a) dates agreed to by all counsel for all remaining deadlines and (b) an updated status of the case. ABC is a service provider of plumbing and HVAC products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=10Ti6n at no extra charge.[CC] AGILITI HEALTH: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Quiles Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ERICA ROSE QUILES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AGILITI HEALTH, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV17193 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 13, 2025) is a class action suit against the Defendants for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Codem stemming from the Defendants': -- failure to pay for all hours worked (including minimum 9 wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), -- failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, -- failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, -- failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and -- failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants seeking only to recover penalties for 28 himself, on behalf of all Aggrieved Employees that worked for Defendants, and on behalf The Plaintiff does not seek underlying general and/or special damages for those violations, but simply penalties as permitted by California Labor Code Section 2699, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief for himself and all aggrieved employees as permitted by the PAGA. Agiliti is a medical equipment company helping healthcare organizations access, manage and maintain equipment for optimal patient outcomes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. Enzo Nabiev, Esq. Carter Provencio, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com enabiev@moonlawgroup.com cprovencio@moonlawgroup.com ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Griffith Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Allstate Corporation. The case is styled as Jennifer Griffith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Allstate Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-06358 (N.D. Ill., June 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Allstate Corporation -- https://www.allstate.com/ -- is one of the largest publicly held personal lines insurers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com AMAZON.COM INC: Process for Sealing Confidential Docs Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOLENE FURDEK, and JONATHAN RYAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-01599-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson entered an order setting process for sealing confidential materials. In the interest of efficiency and judicial economy, the Parties stipulate and jointly propose that Amazon and Apple submit a single joint brief to support the sealing of any materials for which they intend to seek continued sealing in connection with the briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, rather than separate sealing papers for each brief filed. Amazon and Apple's consolidated response will clearly identify each docket entry to which it pertains. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), Plaintiffs, Amazon and Apple will provisionally file under seal those portions of any briefing, declarations, exhibits, and all other evidence which may contain material designated Confidential or Highly Confidential. Following the completion of briefing, the Parties will meet and confer regarding sealing. Amazon and Apple's response regarding sealing, and any proposed redactions, will be due four weeks after briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is completed. On May 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed under provisional seal Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2XQjd3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Theodore Wojcik, Esq. Meredith Simons, Esq. Ben Harrington, Esq. Benjamin Siegel, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com benh@hbsslaw.com bens@hbsslaw.com tedw@hbsslaw.com merediths@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA, 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: johngoldmark@dwt.com maryannalmeida@dwt.com - and - Benjamin M. Mundel, Esq. Jacquelyn Fradette, Esq. Mark D. Hopson, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 E-mail: jfradette@sidley.com mhopson@sidley.com bmundel@sidley.com - and - Mark S. Parris, Esq. Eric Hochstadt, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 839-4300 Facsimile: (206) 839-4301 E-mail: mparris@orrick.com ehochstadt@orrick.com - and - Anna Pletcher, Esq. Benjamin Bradshaw, Esq. Sergei Zaslavsky, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8994 E-mail: apletcher@omm.com bbradshaw@omm.com szaslavsky@omm.com AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Faces Class Action Suit Over Interns' Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that a litany of for-profit veterinary companies, practices, associations and teaching institutions have engaged in a long-running conspiracy to depress the wages of veterinary interns and residents. The 26-page antitrust lawsuit claims that the conspiracy among the defendants, including the American Association of Veterinary Clinicians (AAVC), has caused veterinary interns and residents to endure harsh working conditions, poor hours and compensation often below the level of a living wage. The class action lawsuit accuses the defendants of violating the federal Sherman Act by engaging in a scheme to "eliminate competition in the market for veterinary resident and intern services," namely through the Veterinary Internship and Residency Matching Program (VIRMP). According to the complaint, VIRMP, or the Match Program, is a centralized allocation system through which veterinary resident and intern applicants are assigned to a single, specific position at an employer participating in the program. Per the case, the Match Program prohibits the negotiation of salaries between applicants and prospective employers and imposes "strict limitations" on applicants' mobility and choice. The case explains that the Match Program is updated with new internship and residency openings by employers every September, with the openings published online by administrators throughout October and made available to applicants every November through January. Per the suit, these applications are then run through an assessment algorithm developed by defendant Solution Innovations as part of a contract with the AAVC. In March, each accepted applicant is offered only one position on a day the program calls "Match Day," the lawsuit shares. The lawsuit alleges that, in agreeing to the Match Program's terms of service, employers and teaching institutions "agree not to negotiate with applicants, agree not to make commitments or contracts with applicants prior to the notification of match results, and agree not to pursue or offer employment to applicants matched elsewhere by the Match Program unless the applicant has obtained a written release from his or her matched employer." The Match Program also allegedly strictly enforces these terms, with the complaint claiming that "harsh sanctions" are imposed on institutions or employers who violate the terms, including a minimum three-year ban on participating in Match Program services. According to the suit, the defendants, listed at the bottom of this post, also exchanged details on salaries offered through individual internship and residency programs. In addition, the parties, through an annual survey of veterinary intern and resident pay, analyze and share wage data among employers so as to provide "guidance," producing wages that are "far lower than comparable veterinary positions" that do not participate in VIRMP. The Match Program is supposedly used in exclusivity by over 90 percent of veterinary institutions for their intern and resident hiring needs. Moreover, the terms of service for the Match Program allegedly bind applicants to accept whichever employment opportunity they are matched with by the program, further restricting their mobility and choice. This also allows employers and institutions more room to engage in unfair pay and labor practices, the suit charges. The veterinary resident and intern class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the U.S. who obtained employment as vet interns or residents through the Match Program at any time from May 30, 2021 through the date the defendants' allegedly anticompetitive conduct ends. Named as defendants in the class action lawsuit are: -- American Association of Veterinary Clinicians; -- Solution Innovations, Inc.; -- American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges; -- The American Veterinary Medical Association; -- VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc.; -- Ethos Veterinary Health LLC; -- Pathway Vet Alliance, LLC d/b/a Thrive Pet Healthcare; -- MedVet Associates, LLC; -- Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania; -- University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine; -- Trustees of Tufts College; -- Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine; -- Cornell University; -- Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine; -- University of Florida Board of Trustees; -- The College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Florida; -- Ohio State University; -- OSU College of Veterinary Medicine; -- Texas A&M University System; and -- Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Science. [GN] AMERICAN NATIONAL: Bid to Initially OK Settlement Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEIDA MIRANDA, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, Case No. 3:22-cv-03633-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order denying without prejudice the motion for preliminary settlement approval. The Court sets a further case management conference on Oct. 6, 2025. The parties shall file an updated joint case management statement by no later than Sept. 29, 2025. The Court will vacate the Oct. 6, 2025, case management conference if a revised motion for preliminary approval has been filed on or before Sept. 29, 2025. The Proposed Settlement contains numerous "obvious deficiencies." In addition, the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval does not comply with the Guidance, and the Plaintiff has not provided the Court with sufficient information to determine whether the Proposed Settlement appears fair. The parties' stipulation of class certification is contingent on the Court's approval of the settlement. As the Court is denying preliminary approval of the settlement, it declines to address the issue of class certification at this time. In sum, the parties have failed to provide the necessary showing under Rule 23(e)(1)(B), and the motion for preliminary approval is therefore denied. The Plaintiff originally filed this action in state court on May 13, 2022, alleging wage and hour and PAGA claims against the Defendant. The Defendant removed the action to federal court on June 21, 2022. American is a nonprofit humanitarian organization that provides emergency assistance, disaster relief, and disaster preparedness education. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bdahLB at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN NATIONAL: Wolf Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN WOLF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-00054-O (N.D. Tex., June 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in January 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. American National Bank & Trust is a bank located in Wichita Falls, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com jellzey@eksm.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Ra Amen, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: dperry@masonllp.com ramen@masonllp.com APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over App Store Crypto Scam ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Mendes, writing for 9TO5Mac, reports that you know it's a day that ends in "y" when there's a new App Store lawsuit. This time, the issue isn't antitrust or developer rejection complaints, but rather a class action accusing Apple of facilitating the spread of cryptocurrency scams by allowing a fake trading app onto the App Store. Here's what happened. Filed this week in the Northern District of California (via CoinGeek), the lawsuit centers around an app called Swiftcrypt, which allegedly posed as a legitimate crypto trading platform but was really part of a broader "pig butchering" scam. That is when users are coaxed into depositing larger and larger amounts of money, slowly building trust, before the platform locks them out and disappears with the funds. "Customer trust is a cornerstone of the App ecosystem." Lead plaintiff Danyell Shin says she downloaded Swiftcrypt onto her iPhone in late 2024, after being introduced to the app through an online investment group. Believing the app was trustworthy, partly because it came from Apple's App Store, she ended up transferring more than $80,000 into the platform. Then, the funds vanished. According to court documents, Apple's own marketing and App Store messaging played a key role in making users feel safe enough to trust the app in the first place. The complaint cites Apple's frequent claims that the App Store is a "safe and trusted place" and highlights years of statements about strict App Review processes, fraud detection, and curated app security: "Apple's affirmative representations and the general impression that it has cultivated that apps from its App Store could be trusted and were safe and secure because of Apple's rigorous vetting and review process were false and misleading." Apple's App Review process called out, again The filing paints a detailed picture of how Apple's own rules for crypto apps, requiring licensing, regulatory compliance, and developer verification, were supposedly not enforced in this case. Swiftcrypt, the lawsuit says, never should have made it onto the App Store at all. Beyond the lost crypto funds, the class action claims that Apple's entire App Store security narrative is misleading under California consumer protection law. The suit argues that users like Shin "overpaid" for their iPhones because part of the perceived value was tied to App Store safety and security guarantees that didn't hold up. "Apple profits not only from app sales or in-app purchases but also from free apps because Apple profits significantly from the added value that this perceived security brings to its devices, making the continued representation of app safety integral to Apple's market strategy and business growth." In addition to financial damages, the plaintiffs want Apple to launch a corrective advertising campaign to fix what they say is a widespread public misperception about App Store safety. [GN] APPLE INC: Feldt Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Skyler Mamone Feldt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00353 was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Utah, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 6, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-04785-NC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Product Liability. Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered and incorporated in Cupertino, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Phone: (646) 347-3940 Fax: (347) 696-1227 Email: raphael@janove.law The Defendant is represented by: Kade N. Olsen, Esq. MITCHELL, BARLOW & MANSFIELD, P.C. 9 Exchange Place, Suite 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 998-8888 Email: Kolsen@mbmlawyers.com ASHLEY ANN: Faces Bennett Suit Over Unfair Loan Interest Rates -------------------------------------------------------------- MALCOLM BENNETT and DONNA D'ELIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASHLEY ANN AIREY, doing business as GREEN FUNDS GROUP and GREEN FUNDS EXPRESS, ATTENTIVE MOBILE, INC., DAVE BERNARD, doing business as RIVER FUNDS, MIDDAY GREEN, EAGLE WING CREDIT, and FAST GREEN DIRECT, FINSANA, LLC, KIRBY DELISLE, doing business as ARROW VALLEY LOANS, ARROW MOUNTAIN FUNDING, RAPID ARROW LOANS, and SWIFT DEER LENDING, NCR FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., THE FIRST NATIONS LENDERS' AUTHORITY, and WATERS LAW OFFICE, PLLC d/b/a WLO PAYMENTS, Case No. 8:25-cv-01534 (M.D. Fla., June 13, 2025) is an action against all the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, and for unjust enrichment, as well as violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. The Defendants operate or provide various services essential to the operation of the following lending websites: a. https://www.greenfundsexpress.com ("Green Funds Express"); b. https://www.arrowvalleyloans ("Arrow Valley"); c. https://www.greenfundsgo.com/ ("Green Funds Go"); d. https://www.arrowmountainfunding.com/ ("Arrow Mountain"); e. https://www.swiftdeerlending.com/ ("Swift Deer Lending"); f. https://www.rapidarrowloans.com/ ("Rapid Arrow"); g. https://www.middaygreen.com/ ("Midday Green"); h. https://www.fastgreendirect.com/ ("Fast Green"); i. https://www.riverfundsgroup.com ("River Funds"); and, j. https://www.eaglewingfunds.com/ ("Eagle Wing"). According to the complaint, loans made through the FNLA Lending Websites charge interest rates exceeding 600% annually -- rates significantly above the maximum legal rate in most states, including Florida. Indeed, Florida law prohibits usury and caps interest rates at 18% annually. Interest rates of 45% and higher are deemed a felony. Loans made at usurious rates are void ab initio under Florida law. Until recently, the FNLA Lending Websites represented that the lender responsible for making the loans was a "a subsidiary agency of The First Nations Lenders' Authority" and that The FNLA "is an independent body with the mandate to oversee short-term lending service businesses within and from the Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake." By asserting First Nation governance, and through the use of choice-of-law provisions and assertions American borrowers must file legal action in Quebec, Defendants have attempted to strip consumers of any remedies they may have under state law, and attempted to circumvent state usury laws, such as Florida's. However, the notion that Arrow Mountain is operated primarily by, and/or for the benefit of the Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake is a farce. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake has expressly disavowed any relationship with the FNLA, and by extension, the FNLA Lending Websites. On or about March 17, 2025, the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake served a cease-and-desist order to a number of the Defendants, including DeLisle, Finsana, and NCR. On June 6, 2024, Mr. Bennett obtained a loan from Green Funds Express in the principal amount of $300. Mr. Bennett took the loan out from his home in Florida, had the proceeds wired to his checking account which he maintains in Florida, signed all relevant documents in Florida, received loan communications in Florida, and had payment debited from his checking account at a Florida bank. Green Funds Express charged an interest rate of 740.13% annually on the Loan, requiring Mr. Bennett to repay a total of $958.26 for the $300 loan, the suit asserts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan J. Geiger, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P.A. 2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite A. Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 567-1230 Facsimile: (855) 500-0705 E-mail: BGeiger@seraphlegal.com AYFAIR LLC: Atkinson Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------- Aleshia Atkinson, Angelina Williams, Brawnson Rewis, Briana Britton, Calista Taylor, Darryl Waller, Lindsey Simmons, and Tanique Clarke, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WAYFAIR LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-11694-FDS (D. Mass., June 10, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Defendant's willful violations of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Laws ("IMWL"), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, the Nevada Payment and Collection of Wages and Other Benefits ("NPCW"), the Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; New York Labor Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law "(PWPCL"), the Utah Payment of Wages Act ("UPWA"), and the Virgina Wage Payment Act. The Defendant's CSE jobs are hourly, non-exempt positions with rigid schedules that regularly require CSEs, including Plaintiffs, to work at least 8 hours per day, on average 5 days each week, and up to 40 hours or more in a workweek. These schedules result in CSEs routinely working overtime on a weekly basis. Indeed, throughout their employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs were required to work a substantial amount of unpaid time, including overtime, as part of their roles as a CSE, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as remote CSEs. The Defendant offers consumers throughout the country home decor products for purchase via its website or mobile application.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett Lee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 155 Federal Street, Suite 1502 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (857) 383-4906 Fax: (857) 383-4931 Email: glee@forthepeople.com - and - Charles R. Ash, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 43000 W. Nine Mile Rd., Suite 301 Novi, MI 48375 Phone: (734) 234-5583 Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) WORKERS Fax: (954) 327-3013 Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Oscar A. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW PLC 402 W. Liberty St. Ann Arbor, MI 4813 Phone: (734) 355-5666 Email: oscar@orodlaw.com BAYMARK HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McDowell Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KARLA MCDOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYMARK HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00600-JCB (E.D. Tex., June 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and the violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between September 24, 2024 and October 14, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Baymark Health Services, Inc. is a provider of healthcare services, with its principal place of business located in Lewisville, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com BFF FOOD: Faces Villa Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- JULIO VILLA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BFF FOOD CORP D/B/A FOODTOWN, SBE MEAT CORP, MELISSA ESTEVEZ A/K/A "MELISSA FERNANDEZ," and MICHAEL FERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03252 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2025) is an action against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages, overtime pay, minimum wages, and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have been victims of the same policies and practices of Defendant, including failing to pay lawful wages for all hours worked and failing to pay overtime compensation, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief for Defendants' willful misreporting of his wages to federal tax authorities, which resulted in Plaintiff incurring additional tax liabilities. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts claims under New York common law for assault and/or battery, stemming from Defendants' owner or agents physically accosting Plaintiff in the workplace. The Plaintiff was also terminated from his employment on or about February 11, 2025, under circumstances suggesting retaliation and/or wrongful termination in violation of his rights under federal and state law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately 2009 until his termination. The Plaintiff's job duties included, but were not limited to, receiving and unloading delivery trucks, stocking and organizing merchandise, covering for employees during breaks, handling customer service issues, and performing general maintenance and repairs around the store. BFF Food Corp., d/b/a FOODTOWN, is a supermarket chain selling groceries, baked goods & frozen foods, plus health and beauty products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 Facsimile: (646) 556-6112 E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com BLUE CROSS: Wesco Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------- WESCO, INC., and WESCO, INC. CAFETERIA PLAN AND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN, on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11712-SKD-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 9, 2025) arises from BCBSM's ongoing and systematic violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, instead of fulfilling its statutory duty to safeguard plan assets, BCBSM orchestrated an elaborate, self-dealing scheme to use plan assets for its own gain through a pattern of prohibited transactions deceptively portrayed as cost saving measures. BCBSM entered into administrative services contracts with Plaintiffs and all other members of the putative Class, agreeing to administer their self-funded healthcare benefit plans. Contrary to these obligations, BCBSM unilaterally enrolled all self-funded customers and their plans -- including Wesco, the Plan, and the putative Class members -- into a complex and convoluted "Shared Savings Program." Through its SSP, BCBSM surreptitiously and unlawfully extracts excessive compensation for itself, at the direct expense of its self-funded customers and their plans, in violation of ERISA, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action to hold BCBSM accountable for its unlawful self-dealing and breaches of fiduciary duties, to recover the losses suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class members because of BCBSM's violations of ERISA, to obtain restitution and disgorgement of BCBSM's fees obtained through its SSP, and to be awarded all other appropriate relief, legal or equitable, that the Court deems just and proper. Wesco, Inc., a 55-year-old family-owned and operated chain of gas station convenience stores, is a Michigan corporation. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a nonprofit mutual insurance company that operates under Chapter 58 of the Michigan Insurance Code, MCL 550.1101, et seq, with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Perrin Rynders, Esq. Aaron M. Phelps, Esq. Herman D. Hofman, Esq. Justin M. Wolber, Esq. VARNUM LLP Bridgewater Place, P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 E-mail: prynders@varnumlaw.com amphelps@varnumlaw.com hdhofman@varnumlaw.com jmwolber@varnumlaw.com BRAD RAFFENSPERGER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEW GEORGIA PROJECT, et al., v. BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Georgia, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03412-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of their deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class of the Defendants until July 22, 2025 An extension of the Defendants' response deadline to July 22, 2025 would not prejudice Moving Plaintiffs or slow down the administration of this case. If Defendants' file their responses on July 22, Moving Plaintiffs' reply brief would be due on Aug. 5, 2025, meaning that the class certification issue will be fully briefed and submitted to the Court likely prior to all Defendants filing Answers, and well before the timeline contemplated in the initial Scheduling Order. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U7qxCP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan Kandel, Esq. Melanie Wilson, Esq. Samantha Routh, Esq. GWINNETT COUNTY LAW DEPARTMENT 75 Langley Drive Lawrenceville, GA 30046 - and - C. Ryan Germany, Esq. Mark D. Johnson, Esq. Amber M. Carter, Esq. GILBERT HARRELL SUMERFORD & MARTIN, P.C. Brunswick, GA 31521 Telephone: (912) 265-6700 E-mail: rgermany@ghsmlaw.com mjohnson@ghsmlaw.com acarter@ghsmlaw.com BRADFORD HEALTH: Mcpherson Files Suit in N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bradford Health Services, LLC. The case is styled as Taylor Mcpherson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bradford Health Services, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00883-NAD (N.D. Ala., June 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Bradford Health Services -- https://bradfordhealth.com/ -- provides best-in-class addiction treatment at drug and alcohol rehab facilities across the South.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Hughes, Esq. HARDIN & HUGHES LLP 2121 14th Street Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 Phone: (205) 344-6690 Fax: (205) 344-6188 Email: dhughes@hardinhughes.com BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Kapphahn Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Angela Kapphahn, De'Ajala Le'Shay Harris, Lashiya Stewart, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; R.I. Limited Liability Company doing business as: Recovery – Industry; John Does Finance Companies 1-50; Case No. 0:25-cv-02409-JRT-DTS (D. Minn., June 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation (BAC) -- https://bridgecrest.com/ -- is a licensed motor vehicle sales finance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carter B. Lyons, Esq. Thomas J. Lyons, Jr, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Phone: (612) 770-4221 Fax: (651) 704-0907 Email: carter@consumerjusticecenter.com tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com BRINKS NETWORK: Almonte Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brinks Network, Inc. The case is styled as Jeffrey Marrero Almonte, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Brinks Network, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00294-MTS (N.D. Okla., June 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Brink's -- https://us.brinks.com/ -- provides secure cash management solutions, ATM services, and financial security innovations to businesses nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Alison, Esq. INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP, PLLC 233 South Detroit Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 Phone: (918) 347-6169 Email: matthew@iaelaw.com CIGNA GROUP: Adams Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------- Andria Adams, Heather Montesanti and Danielle Ulshafer, individually, on behalf of The Cigna Group 401(k) Savings Plan and on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan v. THE CIGNA GROUP; THE CIGNA GROUP RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:25-cv-02979 (E.D. Pa., June 10, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") for the benefit of the Plan and its participants and Beneficiaries, asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of ERISA between June 10, 2019 through the date of any judgment in this litigation (the "Class Period"), against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include: Defendants The Cigna Group ("Cigna" or "Company"), The Cigna Group Retirement Plan Committee (the "Committee"), and John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Committee (individually sometimes "Defendant," and, collectively, "Defendants" or "Plan Fiduciaries"). As fiduciaries to the Plan, Defendants were obligated at all times to act prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. However, Defendants utterly abdicated their fiduciary duties to the Class. Specifically, during the Class Period and continuing, Defendants decided to use unallocated Plan forfeiture dollars to reduce Company's employer matching contribution obligations, rather than using those funds to defray Plan expenses, as required by ERISA. They did so to the tune of at least $17 million. Doing so was disloyal and imprudent and was the result of Defendants' self-interested conduct and dereliction of fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs bring this action to obtain the relief provided under ERISA, for losses suffered by the Plan resulting from the Defendants' fiduciary breaches and prohibited transactions described below, and for other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief under ERISA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff by virtue of her prior employment with Cigna and prior participation in the Plan. The Cigna Group is a global healthcare company with over 70,000 employees worldwide, with a principal place of business located in Bloomfield, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Paul J. Sharman, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Phone: (678) 242-5297 Facsimile: (678) 802-2129 Email: paul@sharman-law.com CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Appeals Class Certification Order in Davis Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ CLIENTS ON DEMAND, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in substantial part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Kendrick Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Clients On Demand, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10541-MWC-SSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of Contract. On Feb. 14, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Michelle Williams Court granted in substantial part on May 19, 2025. The Court certifies the following class and sub-class for all causes of action, except the Plaintiff's the Contract Labor Regulation and Abolition Act (CLRA) claim: Class: "All natural persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated, purchased an eight-week program from Clients on Demand and who have not received a full refund of their purchase price." Voidable SAMP Contract Subclass: "All members of the Class who purchased an eight-week program from Clients on Demand within one year before the filing of this Class Action Complaint until the date notice is disseminated." Excluded from the class are governmental entities, the Defendants, any entity in which Defendants the have a controlling interest, and the Defendants' officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. Plaintiff Kendrick Davis is appointed as class representative and Lorraine Weekes, Kevin Kneupper, and Cyclone Covey of Kneupper & Covey, PC, are appointed as class counsel to represent the interests of the class and the subclass. The appellate case is entitled Davis v. Clients On Demand, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-3532, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent KENDRICK DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: A. Lorraine Weekes, Esq. KNEUPPER AND COVEY PC 17011 Beach Boulevard, Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (657) 845-3100 Defendants-Petitioners CLIENTS ON DEMAND, LLC, et al. are represented by: Douglas Damon Willens, Esq. MEYLAN DAVITT JAIN AREVIAN & KIM, LLP 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 3675 Los Angeles, CA 90071 CLUTCH INC: Soboleski Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Soboleski, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. CLUTCH, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-11698-BRM-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 8, 2025), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of the Defendants unsolicited advertisement or marketing text messages. The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement or marketing text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC Registry") without prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in this District. The Defendant is a limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com COINBASE INC: Faces Ramo Suit Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN RAMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. and COINBASE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04811 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach learned on May 11, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Coinbase, Inc. is a company that operates a cryptocurrency exchange, with its principal executive offices located at One Madison Avenue, Suite 2400, New York, New York. Coinbase Global, Inc. is the parent company of Coinbase, Inc., with its principal executive offices located at One Madison Avenue, Suite 2400, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynda J. Grant, Esq. THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 292-4441 Facsimile: (212) 292-4442 Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 Email: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued Over Misleading "Free Shipping" Promise -------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Zaimi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01076 (W.D. Wash., June 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, for certain items, Costco charges more when selling online than it does when selling the same item in its physical stores. This is because, when selling online, Costco increases the price of certain items to account for shipping costs. But during the purchase process, Costco does not disclose that it is inflating the cost of items purchased online at www.costco.com to account for shipping costs. Instead, Costco presents a single price and then affirmatively misrepresents that consumers are paying "$0.00" extra for shipping. The Plaintiff and other consumers are being promised free shipping and, in reality, are charged extra for shipping. This misleads consumers into thinking that they are getting free shipping when they have to pay for it, says the suit. Plaintiff Zaimi purchased a couch from www.costco.com because Costco promised $0.00 shipping. But she was misled, in truth, the price included significant shipping costs. She brings this case for herself and other consumers who bought products from www.costco.com where Costco promised free shipping, but the price was inflated by shipping costs. Costco Wholesale Corporation is a multinational corporation that operates a chain of membership-only big-box retail stores, known as warehouse clubs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Vivek Kothari, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: christin@dovel.com vivek@dovel.com simon@dovel.com CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: W.D. Tex. Dismisses Consumer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has granted CrowdStrike (NASDAQ: CRWD) a motion to dismiss a consumer class action suit brought by airline passengers who claimed they experienced flight disruptions as a result of a software outage in July 2024. The ruling states that the claims related to airline services are preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). To prevent a patchwork of inconsistent state laws governing the airline industry, the US Congress included a preemption provision in the ADA, which expressly preempts state-law claims related to airline services. "That the plaintiffs here bring their suit against CrowdStrike, rather than against the airlines themselves, does not prevent ADA preemption," the US District Court order stated. "We are grateful for the Court's thoughtful consideration and decision to dismiss this case," said Cathleen Anderson, chief legal officer at CrowdStrike. About CrowdStrike CrowdStrike (NASDAQ: CRWD), a global cybersecurity leader, has redefined modern security with the world's most advanced cloud-native platform for protecting critical areas of enterprise risk -- endpoints and cloud workloads, identity and data. Powered by the CrowdStrike Security Cloud and world-class AI, the CrowdStrike Falcon® platform leverages real-time indicators of attack, threat intelligence, evolving adversary tradecraft and enriched telemetry from across the enterprise to deliver hyper-accurate detections, automated protection and remediation, elite threat hunting and prioritized observability of vulnerabilities. Purpose-built in the cloud with a single lightweight-agent architecture, the Falcon platform delivers rapid and scalable deployment, superior protection and performance, reduced complexity and immediate time-to-value. CrowdStrike: We stop breaches. [GN] CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Cupertino Electric Inc. Litigation, Case No. 5:23-cv-04007-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of proposed class action settlement. (1) The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All residents of the United States who were sent notice that their personal information was accessed, stolen, or compromised as a result of the Data Security Incident." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) Cupertino, any Entity in which Cupertino has a controlling interest, and Cupertino's partners, officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Action and members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. (2) The Court determines that for settlement purposes the proposed Settlement Class meets all the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). (3) Kevin Crowl and Jay Wise are designated and appointed as the Settlement Class Representatives. (4) William B. Federman and Tanner R. Hilton of Federman & Sherwood are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Court finds that Mr. Federman and Mr. Hilton are experienced and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. (5) A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Dec. 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. either by video conference or in person in Courtroom 1 – 5th Floor, San Jose Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113. Cupertino is a privately owned electrical engineering and construction company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PKRnMk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 The Defendant is represented by: Christopher J. Seusing, Esq. Jacob P. Wilson, Esq. Sean V. Patel, Esq. Timothy D. Shea, Esq. WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP 685 3rd Ave., 18th Floor New York, NY 10017 D4C DENTAL: Thompson Sues for Discrimination, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------- KAYLA THOMPSON, Plaintiff v. D4C DENTAL BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-22621 (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, to secure protection of, and redress for the deprivation of rights secured by Title VII of the Act of Congress known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, providing for relief against gender and race discrimination, and retaliation. According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff with respect to her employment based on her race, more precisely on the basis of her status as an African American female. The Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff with respect to her employment, compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment based on her race as an African American female when the Defendant, including, but not limited to: wrongfully discharged her, blamed her for an employee of a different race used a bigoted term about her, disparately treated her by discharging her for an error that was minimal and for which employees of other races are not discharged. The Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged by Defendant due to her status as an African American and/or female and for complaining of a co-worker referring to her as "Nigger Kayla," asserts the complaint. D4C Dental Brands, Inc. is a foreign for profit corporation whose principal place of business is Coral Springs, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com DELAWARE: Light Sues Over Nonpayment of Property's Public Use ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN LIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HONORABLE COLLEEN C. DAVIS, State Treasurer of the State of Delaware, and BRENDA MAYRACK, ESQ., State Escheator and Director, Office of Unclaimed Property, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00705-UNA (D. Del., June 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Delaware Constitution of 1897. The case arises from the State Escheator's failure to pay just compensation for the public use of unclaimed property to the owner or person entitled to recover the unclaimed property, including the Plaintiff. The State deprives the Plaintiff and all other Class members of just compensation on unclaimed property it uses for public purposes. The Plaintiff and the Class seek declaratory and prospective injunctive relief. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore A. Kittila, Esq. HALLORAN FARKAS + KITTILA LLP 5722 Kennett Pike Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 257-2025 Facsimile: (302) 257-2019 Email: tk@hfk.law - and - Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave., 9th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Email: rifkin@whafh.com kaufman@whafh.com - and - Arthur Susman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR SUSMAN 1540 N. Lake Shore Drive Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (847) 800-2351 Email: arthur@susman-law.com DELTA COUNTY, MI: Appeals Court Order in Klinter Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- COUNTY OF DELTA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Klinter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. County of Delta, et al., Defendants, in the Circuit Court of Delta, Michigan. The appellate case is captioned Christopher Klinter vs. County of Delta, Case No. 375900, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on June 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee CHRISTOPHER KLINTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Donald R. Visser, Esq. VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC 2480 44th St SE, Suite 150 Kentwood, MI 49512 Telephone: (616) 531-9860 Facsimile: (616) 531-9870 Email: donv@visserlegal.com Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF DELTA, et al. are represented by: Douglas J. Curlew, Esq. CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO PLC 17436 College Parkway Livonia, MI 48152 Telephone: (734) 261-2400 Email: dcurlew@cmda-law.com - and - Allan C. Vander Laan, Esq. CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO PLC 2851 Charlevoix Drive, S.E., Suite 203 Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Telephone: (616) 975-7470 Email: avanderlaan@cmda-law.com DELTA COUNTY, MI: Appeals Ruling in Klinter Suit to Mich. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- COUNTY OF DELTA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Klinter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. County of Delta, et al., Defendants, in the Circuit Court of Delta, Michigan. The appellate case is captioned Christopher Klinter vs. County of Delta, Case No. 375877, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on June 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee CHRISTOPHER KLINTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Donald R. Visser, Esq. VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC 2480 44th St SE, Suite 150 Kentwood, MI 49512 Telephone: (616) 531-9860 Facsimile: (616) 531-9870 Email: donv@visserlegal.com Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF DELTA, et al. are represented by: Douglas J. Curlew, Esq. CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO PLC 17436 College Parkway Livonia, MI 48152 Telephone: (734) 261-2400 Email: dcurlew@cmda-law.com - and - Allan C. Vander Laan, Esq. CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO PLC 2851 Charlevoix Drive, S.E., Suite 203 Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Telephone: (616) 975-7470 Email: avanderlaan@cmda-law.com DIASPORA TEA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. DIASPORA TEA & HERB COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05024 (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://rishi-tea.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff intends to immediately revisit the Website to purchase a Concentrate Sampler Pack from Defendant and to ascertain the information stated above the moment that the access barriers are removed from the Website. While attempting to navigate the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired persons that include Lack of Alternative Text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Fagnani is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://rishi-tea.com, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State. The goods an.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal DOCUSIGN INC: Faces 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 "Advanced Series Trust, et al. v. DocuSign, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:25-cv-04683, 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. EDGECO HOLDINGS: Witchko Sues Over Illegal Cash Sweep Programs -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD WITCHKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDGECO HOLDINGS, L.P., NEWEDGE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, NEWEDGE SECURITIES INC., NEWEDGE SECURITIES, LLC, and NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00781 (W.D. Pa., June 10, 2025) is a class action to recover damages arising out of Defendants' unlawful conduct related to NewEdge's cash sweep programs wherein Defendants automatically invested customer cash into interest-bearing deposit accounts at program banks selected by Defendants. The complaint asserts that the Sweep Programs were highly lucrative for Defendants but paid unreasonable, below-market yields to NewEdge customers. The Defendants determined the yields paid to customers by retaining, as "fees" large portions of the interest paid by the program banks. In other words, the Defendants profited off of the difference between the amounts paid by the program banks on the deposit accounts and the yields passed along by Defendants to NewEdge's customers, including Plaintiff. The Defendants' exploitation of NewEdge customers and failure to pay them a reasonable rate of interest under the Sweep Programs breached their fiduciary and contractual duties, including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and otherwise violated several state laws. EdgeCo Holdings, L.P. is a financial services company that conducts business throughout the United States, services more than $600 billion in assets, and has over 900 employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305 Pittsburgh, PA 15216 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com - and - Stephen R. Astley, Esq. Andrew T. Rees, Esq. Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq. Scott I. Dion, Esq. Alex Kaplan, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: sastley@rgrdlaw.com arees@rgrdlaw.com rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com sdion@rgrdlaw.com akaplan@rgrdlaw.com EVERWISE CREDIT: Runnels Sues Over Disclosed Info to Third Parties ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHANNON RUNNELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERWISE CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01110-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of express and implied contract, unjust enrichment, bailment, declaratory judgment, breach of confidence, conversion, and violations of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Indiana Wiretap Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of disclosing customers' personally identified information (PII) and financial information to third parties without prior consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant secretly configured and implemented code-based tracking devices on its website to collect and disclose customers' personal and financial information. The Defendant utilized data from trackers to improve and to save costs on its marketing campaigns, improve its data analytics, attract new customers, and generate sales, suit says. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers suffered damages. Everwise Credit Union is a full-service financial institution, with a principal place of business located in South Bend, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Emily E. Schiller, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com eschiller@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IN 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com FCA US: Parties Seek to Extend Certain Case Management Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE CROWELL, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00013-MN (D. Del.), the Parties ask the Court extending certain case management deadlines: Event Proposed Deadlines Joinder of Other Parties and Amendment July 16, 2025 of Pleadings: Substantial Completion of Class July 16, 2025 Certification Document Discovery: Fact Discovery Related to Class Aug. 25, 2025 Certification Cut-Off: The Plaintiffs' Class Certification Aug. 25, 2025 Expert Reports: The Defendant's Class Certification Sept. 24, 2025 Expert Rebuttal Reports: The Plaintiffs' Class Certification Oct. 9, 2025 Expert Rebuttal Reports: Motion for Class Certification Oct. 31, 2025 Objections to Expert Testimony: FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K6ltAa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 274-2180 E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Noah L. Cozad, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com ncozad@gustafsongluek.com - and - Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 6810 N. St. Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-7062 E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Patrick M. Brannigan, Esq. Jessica L. Reno, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 574-7400 E-mail: pbrannigan@eckertseamans.com jreno@eckertseamans.com - and - Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888-2970 E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com GATEWAY COMMUNITY: Brown-Hernandez Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gateway Community Services, Inc. The case is styled as Shanika Brown-Hernandez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gateway Community Services, Inc., Case No. 16-2025-CA-003487-AXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty., June 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Circuit Civil." Gateway -- https://gatewaycommunity.com/ -- is proud to be a recognized leader in addiction treatment for adults and adolescents in the Northeast Florida region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 600 Winter Park, FL32789-5552 GENERAL MOTORS: $150MM Settlement in Del Valle Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIEL DEL VALLE, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered an order granting preliminary approval of class settlement. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Action will be dismissed with prejudice, and Class Plaintiffs and the Classes will discharge and release their claims against the Released Parties in exchange for GM’s agreement to pay the non-reversionary cash Settlement Amount of One Hundred Fifty Million Dollars ($150,000,000.00) into the Settlement Fund to be distributed to Class Members in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED The Court, therefore, confirms the following certified Classes for settlement purposes: "All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in new condition in the State of California as of May 23, 2022 (the "California Class")." "All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased from a GM-authorized dealer in the State of Idaho as of May 23, 2022 (the "Idaho Class"). All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of North Carolina as of May 23, 2022 (the "North Carolina Class"). Excluded from the Classes are: GM; any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of GM; any entity in which GM has a controlling interest; any officer, director, or employee of GM; any successor or assign of GM; and any judge to whom this Action is assigned, and his or her spouse; individuals and/or entities who validly and timely opted-out of the previously certified classes following the Notice of Pendency of Class Action issued in this litigation on or about May 23, 2022; and current or former owners of a Class Vehicle who previously released claims in an individual settlement with GM that would otherwise be covered by the Release in this Action. The Court confirms its appointment of Plaintiffs Gabriel Del Valle, William Davis, Jr., and Garret Tarvin as Class Plaintiffs for the Classes. The Court confirms its appointment of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. and DiCello Levitt, LLP as Class Counsel. The Court directs that a Final Approval Hearing shall be scheduled for October 2, 2025 at 1:30 p.m., The Court terminates the following motions (previously held in abeyance pending a settlement) as MOOTED by this Settlement: Docket Nos. 654, 655, 704. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Seal at Docket No. 694. IT IS SO ORDERED. General is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L09fSh at no extra charge.[CC] GIRL SCOUTS: Cookies Contain Toxins, Finkelstein Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JEANINE FINKELSTEIN, individually on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GIRL SCOUTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and FERRERO U.S.A., INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03343 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendants committed deceptive acts or practices by employing false, misleading, and deceptive representations and/or omissions about the presence (or risk of a presence) of Toxins in ubiquitous brand of boxed, ultra-processed cookies (Girl Scout Cookies Products). According to the complaint, the presence of Toxins -- in each of their Products was in the exclusive control of Defendants. The Plaintiff could not possibly have known that the Products contained Toxins (and the risks that follow) because such information was not available to the public until December of 2024, and then was essentially denied by Girls Scouts in its February 2025 blog post and marketing materials, asserts the suit. According to testing, these Products contained: Product Lead Thin Mints 4.5 ug/L S'mores 9.4 ug/L Adventurefuls 10.9 ug/L Tagalongs 19 ug/L Trefoils 9.4 ug/L Because the Plaintiff bought these Products numerous times, the Plaintiff has standing to pursue this claim because she has suffered an economic injury due to lost money or property as a result of Defendants' acts or practices. When Plaintiff purchased the Products, she relied on false, misleading and deceptive representations that the Products were fit for human consumption and did not contain elevated levels of Toxins. The Plaintiff spent money in the transaction that she otherwise would not have spent had she known the truth about Defendants' Products. The suit seeks actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profit into a constructive trust, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. Girl Scouts distribute a ubiquitous brand of boxed, ultra-processed cookies which are sold by Girl Scouts (who are primarily children) and are marketed to children and young adults. Girl Scout's Girl Scout Cookies are sold around the United States and are baked, manufactured, and produced by Ferrero. However, despite these representations that Girl Scout Cookies are sold as being fit for consumption, are marketed to children, and are sold as part of a sophisticated operation that has the resources to ensure than the Girl Scout Cookies are safe, Defendants instead produce and distribute Products which are contaminated with dangerous heavy metals, including aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury (Heavy Metals) and pesticides, including glyphosate (Toxins). Ferrero is a Parsippany, New Jersey-based corporation which services over 8,000 downstream sellers of food products in 26 states. Ferrero produces and sells a significant amount of Girl Scout Cookies through its "Little Brownie Bakers" subdivision. Ferrero generated revenue of over 18.4 billion Euros during the financial year ending on August 31, 2024.21 Ferrero, initially formed in Italy, has had a significant presence in North America since 1969 with the launch of Tic Tac mints; in the time since, Ferrero has sold iconic brands such as Ferrero Rocher, Kinder, Nutella, Tic Tac, Butterfinger, and Crunch and has acquired key brands such as Keebler, Famous Amos, Mother's Cookies, and others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com GROCERY DELIVERY: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. doing business as: EveryPlate, Case No. 1:25-cv-03262-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. doing business as EveryPlate -- https://www.everyplate.com/ -- a meal kit and online grocery delivery service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 GRUNS NUTRITION: Gummies Lack Key Macronutrients, Kearins Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA CAVALLARO-KEARINS and YOLANDA PITRE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GRUNS NUTRITION, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04998 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's Gummies claimed as "comprehensive" and "complete" solution for daily nutrition which provide "100% of kids' daily nutrition," "all-in-one" support for GLP-1 users, and a replacement for essential nutrients, are false and misleading. According to the complaint, the Gummies lack key macronutrients like protein and fat, contain inadequate amounts of critical nutrients like fiber and iron, and none of others, like calcium and omega-3 fatty acids, and cannot plausibly replace the nutritional complexity of real food. The Defendant's false and misleading statements caused Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes to pay a price premium for the Gummies. Had they known the truth, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes would not have purchased the Gummies or would have paid significantly less. The Gummies are expensive. A one-time purchase of Gruns Adults (Low Sugar) has retailed for $79.99 or higher, and Gruns Adults (Sugar-Free) has been priced at $87.99. Gruns Kids (both Low Sugar and Sugar-Free) are currently only available through an "AutoShip and Save" subscription model, and have been available for purchase at up to $50.24 for a four-week pouch. The Plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief against Defendant for violating New York General Business Law; the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; the California Unfair Competition Law; California's False Advertising Law; and common law prohibitions on unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff purchased Gruns Kids (Low Sugar) and Gruns Adults (Sugar Free) from Gruns's website, gruns.co. the Plaintiff relied on Defendant's representations regarding the Gummies' nutritional benefits and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known the truth. The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells Superfoods Greens Gummies for Adults (Gruns Adults) and a parallel product for children called Gruns Cubs or Kids (Gruns Kids).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law - and - Caleb L. Marker, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com HARTZ HOTEL: Herrera Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARTZ HOTEL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04698 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.roxycinemanewyork.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Hartz Hotel Services, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal HERSHEY CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Narguess Noohi filed a class action lawsuit against The Hershey Co. Why: Noohi claims Hershey falsely advertised its Pirate's Booty snacks as containing no artificial preservatives. Where: The Pirate's Booty class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. A new class action lawsuit alleges The Hershey Co. falsely advertises its Pirate's Booty snacks as containing no artificial preservatives. Plaintiff Narguess Noohi filed the class action complaint against Hershey on April 21 in California state court, alleging violations of state consumer laws. According to the Pirate's Booty class action, Hershey falsely advertises its Pirate's Booty Aged White Cheddar Puffs, Cheddar Blast Puffs and Smart Puffs as containing no artificial preservatives when they in fact contain citric acid and lactic acid. "Plaintiffs and the class members have been misled into purchasing Products that did not provide them with the benefit of the bargain they paid money for, namely that the Products would not contain artificial preservatives," the Pirate's Booty class action says. Noohi alleges she purchased one of the Pirate's Booty products from a Sprouts located in Los Angeles on Jan. 29, 2025, and made her purchasing decision because of the labeling on the product that read "no artificial preservatives." Pirate's Booty class action: Snacks contain citric acid, lactic acid Citric acid acts as a preservative when added to food products, including the Pirate's Booty products at issue, the lawsuit claims. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has listed citric acid as a preservative in its "Overview of Food Ingredients, Additives and Colors," it says. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service's "Guideline for Label Approval" states that some common chemical preservatives include BHA, BHT, calcium propionate, citric acid, natamycin and sodium propionate, the Pirate's Booty class action explains. Further, Noohi alleges manufactured lactic acid is produced through genetically engineered bacterial fermentation and acid base synthesis. "Plaintiffs and the Class Members expected to receive the benefit of avoiding the negative potential effects of consuming artificial preservatives, however they have been deprived of that benefit because the Products contain artificial citric acid and lactic acid," the Pirate's Booty class action states. Noohi is seeking to represent anyone in the United States who purchased the Pirate's Booty products within four years prior to the filing of the complaint through to the date of class certification. She is suing for violations of California's False Advertising Act and Unfair Business Practices Act and seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In April, a consolidated class action lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania federal court alleges that Hershey's candy wrappers contain unsafe levels of harmful "forever chemicals," which Hershey allegedly failed to disclose despite known health risks. The plaintiff is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C. The Pirate's Booty class action lawsuit is Noohi v. The Hershey Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-04723, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. [GN] HOSPITAL SISTERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Reset to August 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brahm, Natalie v. Hospital Sisters Health System (HSHS), et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00444 (W.D. Wisc., Filed July 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order resetting the deadlines for class certification briefing and expert disclosures as follows: -- Motion for class certification and proponent class expert disclosures due Aug. 15, 2025. -- Response and respondent class expert disclosures due Oct. 3, 2025; and any reply materials due October 24, 2025. -- All other deadlines remain in place. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. HSHS is a non-profit healthcare system headquartered in Springfield, Illinois. HSHS operates a network of 13 hospitals and other healthcare facilities throughout the midwestern U.S. states of Illinois, and Wisconsin.[CC] IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT: Treitel Balks at Unprotected Info -------------------------------------------------------------- PETER TREITEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00624 (W.D. Tex., June 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Records Act, and the California Consumer Privacy Act, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between December 24, 2024, and December 27, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. iHeartMedia + Entertainment, Inc. is an audio company, with its principal place of business located in San Antonio, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com JACK'S EGGS: Cruz Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL DE JESUS CRUZ QUEZADA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JACK'S EGGS AND OTHER INGREDIENTS LLC (D/B/A JACK'S EGG FARM), JACK NEUSTADT, and MORDECAI NEUSTADT, Case No. 1:25-cv-03326 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Cruz Quezada and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Cruz Quezada appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Plaintiff Cruz Quezada is a former employee of Defendants Jack's Eggs and Other Ingredients LLC, Jack Neustadt, and Mordecai Neustadt. The Defendants own, operate, or control a food products supplier, located at 130 44th Street, Brooklyn, New York under the name "Jack's Egg Farm."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 JOHNSON HEALTH: Faces Douglas Class Suit Over BowFlex Recall ------------------------------------------------------------ DUKE DOUGLAS v. JOHNSON HEALTH TECH TRADING, INC. and BOWFLEX INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00500-wmc (W.D. Wisc., June 13, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated concerning the Defendant's deceptively dangerous product and its manufacturers' inadequate recall efforts. After selling roughly 3.8 million of their popular Bowflex Adjustable Dumbbells, the Defendants announced a nationwide recall instructing their customers to stop using them immediately because weight plates can dislodge during use, posing a hazard to consumers. Scores of consumers have been injured, as the defect causes the weights to dislodge from the dumbbell and fall on the user, concussions, abrasions, broken toes, and contusions. And yet, Defendants refuse to give their money back for these products, instead only offering vouchers, replacement units, and digital fitness memberships. The case protects the bottom line at all costs. On June 5, 2025, the Defendants and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the recall of roughly 3,844,200 BowFlex 552, 52.5 LB and BowFlex 1090, 90 LB Adjustable Dumbbells. Consumers were warned to "immediately stop using the recalled Bowflex adjustable dumbbells" because the Products' weight "plates can dislodge during use." Accordingly, the Defendants refuse to refund customers that purchased the Products. Instead, the Defendants implemented a deficient recall that allows them to say they are doing the right thing, when in fact the primary objective is to protect their bottom line. Any requests for full refunds are denied. The Plaintiff seeks all available relief to consumers, to raise awareness that Defendants' Products are a hazard, and to "encourage companies to take greater care in avoiding the production [and sale] of hazardous products in the first place." The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Suite 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-Mail: Brittany@skclassactions.com JOHNSON PETROLEUM: Gas Station Has Access Barriers, Foster Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LELAND FOSTER v. JOHNSON PETROLEUM INC, an Indiana corporation for profit, and PS PETROLEUM INC, an Indiana corporation for profit, Case No. 1:25-cv-00318 (N.D. Ind., June 13, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of individuals similarly situated, pursuant to the enforcement provision of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has patronized Defendant's property and the facilities thereon previously as a place of public accommodation, and he has experienced the barriers to access. The gas station and convenience store owned and operated by the Defendants underwent extensive renovation and alteration by the Defendant Johnson Petroleum Inc (or its predecessor) which concluded in 2015 and is non-compliant with the remedial provisions of the ADA for newly designed and constructed or altered facilities. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the ADA. The Plaintiff is a Fulton County, Ohio resident. Johnson Petroleum owns a property located at 7462 N US-24 East, Huntington, Indiana, which is a gas station and convenience store. PS Petroleum is operating a business and is purchasing on land contract the property located at 7462 N US-24 East, Huntington, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 E-mail: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com JPAY LLC: Zielinski Appeals Civil Rights Suit Order to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JEREMY ZIELINSKI is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Jeremy Zielinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Annucci, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-954, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaint is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of prisoner's civil rights. The appellate case is captioned Zielinski v. Annucci, Case No. 25-1431, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 5, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEREMY ZIELINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees ANTHONY ANNUCCI, et al. are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 - and - Colleen L. Smeryage, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 1 SE Third Avenue, Suite 1240 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 971-5943 KROGER CO: Antossyan Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mary Antossyan, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 25STCV12963 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05165. The Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a one variety of Kroger's Simple Truth Fruit & Grain Bars (Cereal Bars) from a Ralphs store in Los Angeles County, California. She contends that the Cereal Bars are misleadingly labeled because the labels advertise "no preservatives" despite the Cereal Bars containing citric acid, which allegedly functions as a preservative in some contexts. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of the putative nationwide class for violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jacob M. Harper, Esq. Heather F. Canner, Esq. Daniel H. Leigh, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Email: jacobharper@dwt.com heathercanner@dwt.com danielleigh@dwt.com LEE INTERPRISES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bangert Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY BANGERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEE INTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00070-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, June 13, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and thousands of Class Members' sensitive personal identifying information which as a result, is now in the hands of cybercriminals and published on the dark web. Due to Defendant's deficient data security, hackers accessed Defendant's network servers and systems and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII stored therein, including their names and Social Security numbers, causing widespread injuries and damages to Plaintiff and Class Members (Data Breach). Accordingly, the Defendant collected, used, and maintained Plaintiff’s and Class Members' Private Information to facilitate its operations, and stored and transmitted this Private Information on its network servers and systems. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant or its related entities who, as a condition of and in exchange for receiving employment from Defendant, were required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive Private Information including their names, Social Security numbers, and other Private Information. The Defendant "is a leading provider of local news and information, and a major platform for advertising, with daily newspapers, rapidly-growing digital products, marketing services, innovative technology and nearly 350 weekly and specialty publications serving 72 markets in 25 states."[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 - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-3200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, King Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- NAKIA KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03150-SDG (N.D. Ga., June 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on December 25, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. is a data management service provider, with its principal place of business located in Alpharetta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (678) 290-2246 Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com LITTLE CAESAR: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the case schedule as follows. 1. Motion for Class Certification: a. Motion due by June 30, 2025 b. Responses due by July 28, 2025 c. Replies due byAugust 18, 2025 d. Motion for Class Certification Hearing set for Oct. 21, 2025 On June 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application seeking to continue his June 16, 2025, deadline to file his Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 58). On June 10, 2025, the Parties agreed to enter into a detailed stipulation that would continue the Class Certification Deadline and all related briefing dates and stipulate to the filing of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint as well as agree to the handling of outstanding eDiscovery, depositions, and other related discovery issues. Little is an American multinational chain of pizza restaurants. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=abLjPJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com - and - Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Shealene P. Mancuso, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com Shealene.Mancuso@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. Priya E. Singh, Esq. Lindsay E. Hutner, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12760 High Bluff Drive, Suite 240 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 848-2523 E-mail: Ellen.Bronchetti@gtlaw.com Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com Priya.Singh@gtlaw.com MANAGED CARE: Has Until July 24 to Oppose Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA CROWE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, MCNA INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, and HEALTHPLEX, INC., Case No. 0:23-cv-61065-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting joint motion to request class certification briefing schedule and leave to file excess pages. Description Deadline The Defendants' opposition to motion for July 24, 2025 class certification and disclosure of class certification experts and expert reports: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Aug. 14, 2025 motion for class certification and disclose rebuttal class certification experts and rebuttal expert reports Managed is a provider of dental benefits and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UrJ2xr at no extra charge.[CC] MASSACHUSETTS: Linardon Appeals ADA Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- KELECHI LINARDON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Kelechi Linardon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN E. WALSH, in her individual and official capacities, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10772-WGY, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for alleged violation of the American With Disabilities Act. On May 8, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge William G. Young granted and entered judgment on June 3, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Linardon v. Walsh, et al., Case No. 25-1541, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on June 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KELECHI LINARDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees KATHLEEN E. WALSH, in her individual and official capacities, et al. are represented by: Nadav S. Pearl, Esq. MA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 1 Ashburton Pl, 20th Fl. Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 963-2881 - and - Deborah I. Ecker, Esq. KP LAW PC 101 Arch St., 12th Fl. Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 654-1714 MASSAWA RESTAURANT: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR CRUZ RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASSAWA RESTAURANT CORP. (d/b/a MASSAWA and CAFE MASSAWA), ALMAZ GHEBREZGABHER, and RAHEL TEKEST, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04816 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and discrimination based on race and/or national origin. Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as a cook from approximately August 16, 2022 until on or about September 21, 2024. Massawa Restaurant Corp., doing business as Massawa and Cafe Massawa, is an owner and operator of Ethiopian and Eritrean restaurants, located in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION: Campbell Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mental Health Association, Inc. The case is styled as Chefon Campbell, individually and on Behalf of All others similarly situated v. Mental Health Association, Inc., Case No. 2579CV00419 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., June 10, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Mental Health Association (MHA) -- https://www.mhainc.org/ -- is a nonprofit organization that provides residential programs and supportive services to individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi A. Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Fax: (516) 741-0128 Email: rkassan@milberg.com MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION: Grant Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Chyanne Grant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-30110 (D. Mass., June 8, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and/or protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and its current and former employees, the putative class members. The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for processing employment and providing employment benefits. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seek to remedy these harms on behalf of Himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees. The Defendant MHA is a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation that operates as a health care provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 53 State St. Ste 500 Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-913-0363 Email: john@kristensenlaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tracking User Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.og, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Meta and Yandex Metrica have intentionally "abused" software weaknesses in Android devices to deanonymize and track users' activities and communications without their knowledge or consent, with little to no resistance from Google. Central to the 39-page privacy lawsuit is a June 3, 2025 Ars Technica report that revealed that Meta and Russia-based Yandex have embedded into millions of websites tracking code that deanonymizes Android device users, whose browsers secretly send the companies unique web identifiers via "covert connections." The case accuses Google of negligently failing to stop Meta and Yandex from breaching Android users' privacy while misrepresenting the privacy protections offered by the software. "Put simply, Meta and Yandex were exploiting holes in Android software to link users' anonymous online-browsing activity with identifying information saved locally on Meta and Yandex mobile applications on their devices," the complaint summarizes, accusing the tech giants of violating the privacy of millions of Android users nationwide. The suit contends that the apparent privacy holes in Android software were made possible by the lack of controls Google imposes on developers who operate on the platform. Meta, specifically, is accused of using cookies, third-party tracking scripts and tracking pixels such as the Meta Pixel to vacuum up users' online activity. Once implemented, these data trackers are able to transmit user browsing data back to its source or host server with personal identifiers attached to it, the filing says. The collected information is then, according to the complaint, used by Meta to generate detailed, individual user behavior profiles for algorithmic interference, ad targeting and content customization, from which the company both directly and indirectly profits. Additionally, the complaint claims that these tracking methods are able to skirt around the privacy protections made available on Android devices by developer Google, such as Android's permission controls, Incognito Mode on the Chrome web browser and clearing the device's stored cookies. Per the filing, this has rendered Google's advertisements and promises of privacy and tight security on Android devices false as these software weaknesses persist and are abused by Meta and other companies. "For Plaintiffs and Class members the result is that when using their Android devices, and logged into a Meta or Yandex application, what they watched, clicked, bought, communicated, or read online was tracked without their consent or knowledge," the case alleges. "By stripping users of their anonymity Defendants profited from targeted advertising and the sale of Android software and devices." The class action lawsuit against Meta, Alphabet and Google seeks to represent all Android device users in the U.S. who, while having a Meta or Yandex app installed, visited websites on the same device and had their browsing information collected without their consent within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] METRO SERVICES: Wins Summary Judgment Bid on Several Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA RAMIREZ DE PORTILLO, v. METRO SERVICES GROUP, Case No. 3:24-cv-02118-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order granting Metro's motion for summary judgement on claims one through eight and the individual portion of claim nine. The court severs the individual part of the plaintiff's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim and stays the representative part of the claim. Thus, Metro did not waive its right to compel arbitration of the individual part of the plaintiff's PAGA claim. The plaintiff did not contest Metro's request to stay her representative part pending the resolution of her individual part if arbitration were compelled. The court grants the stay. In this putative class action, the plaintiff sued her employer, Metro Services Group, asserting violations of the California Labor Code (claims one through seven), the California Business and Professions Code (claim eight), and PAGA. The plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (TAC) in March 2024, amending the class definition to "All persons currently or formerly employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees in the State of California at any time between Oct. 23, 2016, and the date of class certification, excluding those who are covered under the Los Angeles/Orange County Maintenance Contractors Agreement, the Southern California Maintenance Contractors Agreement, and the Northern California Maintenance Contractors Agreements." Metro provides cleaning, facility management, and engineering services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i28phH at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAEL BICKERS: Rhodes Seeks To Vacate Default Judgment Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAQUAYLIA L. RHODES, ET AL., On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, V. MICHAEL W. BICKERS, ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-02147-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (a) granting Named Plaintiff's motion; (b) vacating the deadline for Named Plaintiff to move for Default Judgment against the Defaulting Defendants; (c) allowing all Parties to immediately commence discovery; and (d) directing Named Plaintiff to file Motion for Class and collective action certification within 120 days. The Plaintiff cannot yet file for Default Judgment against Defaulted Defendant because this Court must first certify Named Plaintiff’s proposed Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") Class, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("the IMWL") Class, and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective Class and, thereafter, this Court may enter class-wide judgment under the IWPCA, IMWL, and FLSA against all Defendants, jointly and severally. because the Defaulting Defendants have defaulted and have not entered an appearance in this action, Named Plaintiff has had no ability or opportunity to confer with Defaulted Defendants pursuant to Rule 26(f). The record of this case fully supports that Named Plaintiff has thus far been prevented from engaging in discovery to obtain the necessary support to pursue certification of the Classes and class-wide damages under the IWPCA, IMWL, and FLSA against Defendants, jointly and severally On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Class and Collective Action Complaint. On Oct. 17, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her operative Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZNag6X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER, LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812)232-9691 E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com - and - Athena M. Herman, Esq. ATHENA HERMAN LAW, LLC 416 Main St., Suite 811 Peoria, IL 61602 Telephone: (309) 966-0248 E-mail: athena@athenahermanlaw.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com MICHAEL KORS: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that a class action complaint has been filed against Michael Kors (USA), Inc. by plaintiff Victoria Soboleski in the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit alleges the company sent unsolicited marketing text messages to people whose numbers are on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Soboleski v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., 2:25-cv-11838-DPH-CI. The TCPA restricts telephone solicitations to individuals who have registered their numbers on the National Do-Not-Call ("DNC") Registry. Once a number is on the registry for 30 days, companies are generally prohibited from making "telephone solicitation" calls to it. A person who receives more than one call or text in a 12-month period in violation of this rule can sue. "The term telephone solicitation means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such term does not include a call or message: (i) To any person with that person's prior express invitation or permission; (ii) To any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship; or (iii) By or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization." Thus, by definition, a "telephone solicitation" under the TCPA does not include calls or messages made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization, calls to a person with whom the caller has an established business relationship, or calls to a person who has given the caller their express prior permission to call. Here, the plaintiff alleges that Michael Kors sent multiple marketing text messages to her personal cell phone number, even though the number had been registered on the National DNC Registry for over a month. She further alleges that she had no prior relationship with the company, never gave them permission to text her, and that the messages were to advertise/market Michael Kors business/services. Based on those allegations, she is seeking to represent the following class: All persons throughout the United States (1) who did not provide their telephone number to Michael Kors (USA), Inc., (2) to whom Michael Kors (USA), Inc. delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one voice message or text message within a 12-month period, promoting Michael Kors (USA), Inc. goods or services, (3) where the person's residential or cellular telephone number had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days before Michael Kors (USA), Inc. delivered, or caused to be delivered, at least two of the voice messages or text messages within the 12-month period, (4) within four years preceding the date of this complaint and through the date of class certification. We will keep an eye on this one. [GN] MID-DELTA PROPERTIES: Wiggins Seeks Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNEDI WIGGINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MID-DELTA PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00078-MPM-JMV (N.D. Miss., June 10, 2025) challenges Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. By failing to properly include certain amounts in the calculation of each employee's weekly regular rate of pay, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and all its hourly, non-exempt employees one- and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. By neglecting to do so, the Defendant systematically deprived Plaintiff and the other hourly, non-exempt employees of the overtime they are due pursuant to the law, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a certified nursing assistant until approximately November of 2022. Mid-Delta Properties, LLC operates a skilled nursing facility in Washington County, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com NATIONAL MORTGAGE: Appeals Court Clarifies Mortgage Refunds ----------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Sellers, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has given insurers added clarity -- and protection -- on how they handle refunds for private mortgage insurance premiums. On June 16, 2025, the court held that insurers are not obligated to refund prepaid premiums when mortgage insurance is canceled outside the standard statutory guidelines. The case, Steve Kovachevich v. National Mortgage Insurance Corporation, centered on whether a homeowner who had prepaid his mortgage insurance was entitled to a partial refund after the coverage was voluntarily canceled by his mortgage servicer. Kovachevich bought a home in Virginia in 2020 and, because he made a down payment of less than 20 percent, was required to purchase private mortgage insurance, or PMI. A year later, he asked for the insurance to be canceled. His servicer, LoanCare, initially said no, citing that he hadn't paid down enough of his loan under the federal benchmarks. But it then agreed to cancel the coverage anyway -- outside the standard rules -- if Kovachevich met certain conditions. After the cancellation went through, Kovachevich asked National Mortgage Insurance Corporation (NMIC) to refund part of the premiums he had prepaid. Both NMIC and LoanCare said no, arguing that under the Homeowners Protection Act (HPA), those payments were non-refundable in this context. Kovachevich sued in federal court, saying the insurer had violated the law by refusing to return the money. The case was dismissed last year, and now the Fourth Circuit has affirmed that decision. At the heart of the case was a narrow but important question for insurers: When exactly does the law require them to refund unearned premiums? The court said that under the HPA, those refunds are only mandatory when PMI is canceled using one of three statutory methods -- like hitting a specific equity threshold or reaching the midpoint of the loan's amortization schedule. Because Kovachevich's insurance was canceled voluntarily and not through one of those legal benchmarks, the court ruled that no refund was required. In short, the decision confirms that mortgage insurers are only on the hook for refunds when specific federal standards are met. Voluntary agreements -- common in real-world servicing -- don't automatically trigger a repayment obligation. While the lawsuit also included state-level claims for unjust enrichment and conversion, those were sent back to the lower court to decide whether it wants to take them up. For mortgage insurers, the decision draws a clear line. It affirms that premium refund obligations under federal law are limited and predictable, reducing the risk of disputes over voluntary cancellations. It also gives insurers and servicers a more solid footing when drafting internal policies and responding to borrower requests. There were no disputes in this case about the wording of an insurance policy or contract. Instead, the entire issue hinged on how the federal statute is interpreted and applied. The case could be especially relevant for compliance officers, claims professionals, and legal teams at insurers that operate in the PMI space. With clear precedent now on the books, the industry has firmer ground when determining when -- and if -- refunds are required. [GN] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: LaGrassa Appeals Denied Alter Judgment Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE VONNIEDA-LAGRASSA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to alter judgment in the lawsuit entitled Michelle VonNieda-LaGrassa, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-03407, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit contends that Nationstar's improper refusal or failure to issue Standalone Partial Claim (SPC) and each Partial Claim Class members' loans despite such individuals having sufficient partial claim funds available to reinstate their loans, constitute fraudulent or deceptive conduct which would create the likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding in relation to the loans in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. On May 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on June 12, 2024. On Nov. 8, 2024, Judge John M. Gallagher entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Court concludes that all of the Plaintiffs' claims rely on interpreting the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) regulations to mean that mortgagees must offer SPCs using additional Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) funds. That interpretation is untenable, so the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. On Dec. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter judgment, which Judge Gallagher denied on May 7, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Michelle VonNieda-LaGrassa, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. 25-2083, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHELLE VONNIEDA-LAGRASSA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Marc Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANN LAW FIRM 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. WEITZ FIRM LLC 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Defendant-Appellee NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC is represented by: Megan E. Burns, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 200 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 - and - D. Kyle Deak, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE 305 Church at North Hills Street, Suite 1200 Raleigh, NC 27609 - and - Sierra Stockley, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (850) 217-9799 NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE: Simmons 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 Aquila Simmons, 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. SPCV25-00851-WA (Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty., June 10, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Tort. 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: Andrew Joseph Conn, Esq. HARRIS LOWRY MANTON LLP 3354 Lenox Rd NE, Suite 1000 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (912) 373-8642 NEW AMERICAN FUNDING: Ashworth Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New American Funding, LLC. The case is styled as Beth Sarver Ashworth, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. New American Funding, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01025 (M.D. Fla., June 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. New American Funding -- https://www.newamericanfunding.com/ -- is a direct mortgage lender offering an array of mortgage loan options including purchase, refinance, and first time home buyer loans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com NEW AMERICAN: Parties in Ashworth Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ashworth v. New American Funding, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01025 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 10, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is a direct mortgage lender offering an array of mortgage loan options including purchase, refinance, and first time home buyer loans.[CC] NIKE INC: Promotes Unregistered NFTs, Fernandez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ LUIS FERNANDEZ and MARK PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NIKE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03169 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violations of the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Unlawful Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's use of its iconic brand and marketing prowess to hype, promote, and prop up Nike-themed non-fungible tokens from a Nike subsidiary called RTFKT, Inc. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated others would never have purchased the Nike NFTs at the prices they did, or at all, had they known that the Nike NFTs were unregistered securities or that Nike would cause the rug to be pulled out from under them. As a result of Nike's promotion of the unregistered securities and also its rug pull, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. Nike, Inc. is an international footwear, athletics and apparel corporation, headquartered in Oregon. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Michael Cohen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com philkim@rosenlegal.com mcohen@rosenlegal.com NORTHWEST COMMUNITY: Vargas Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rafael Herrera Vargas, on behalf of Plaintiff and the class members, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. NORTHWEST COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and LAW OFFICES OF NEIL J. GREENE, LLC, Case No. 2025CH05103 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06586. The Plaintiff alleges he was a participant in an employer-sponsored medical benefits plan ("Plan") governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and that he received treatment at NCH that was covered by this Plan.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joel C. Griswold, Esq. Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. Katharine H. Walton, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP One North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 Phone: (312) 416-6200 Email: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com NOW HEALTH: Faces Oh Suit Over Slack-Fill Non-GMO Dextrose Product ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIMON OH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOW HEALTH GROUP, INC., an Illinois corporation, d/b/a NOW REAL FOOD, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05136 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code, and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Non-GMO Dextrose product. According to the complaint, the Defendant deceptively sells its product in oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are over half empty. The front of the product's packaging does not include any information that would reasonably apprise the Plaintiff of the quantity of product relative to the size of the container, such as a fill line. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the product or would have not paid premium price for it. Now Health Group Inc., doing business as Now Real Food, is a manufacturer of sugar substitute products in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com O POSITIV INC: Mislabels URO Probiotic Capsules, Taylor Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JASMINE TAYLOR and DAWN NOGUERA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. O POSITIV, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03232 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2025) seeks monetary and injunctive relief against the Defendant for violating New York General Business Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California's False Advertising Law, and common law prohibitions on unjust enrichment. The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells URO Vaginal Probiotic capsules, a dietary supplement containing a blend of probiotic strains marketed for vaginal health. The URO Capsules are sold for up to $53.98 per thirty-serving bottle. Through aggressive marketing, the Defendant claims that the URO Capsules can improve vaginal odor and taste, alleviate symptoms such as discharge, itching, and burning, and promote overall vaginal health. The Defendant suggests, both implicitly and explicitly, that natural variation in vaginal odor is undesirable and unhealthy and that its URO Capsules provide a necessary fix. The complaint asserts that these claims are false. Vaginal odor varies from person to person and is a normal biological function that does not require intervention. When odor is caused by infection, the appropriate response is consultation with a medical professional, who may prescribe clinically proven treatments such as antibiotics or antifungals. The Defendant's false and misleading statements caused Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes to pay a price premium for the URO Capsules. Had they known the truth, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes would not have purchased the URO Capsules or would have paid significantly less, the suit contends. Incorporated in 2020, O Positiv manufactures, markets, and sells wellness products targeted at women, including the URO Capsules and supplements for menstrual health, menopause symptoms, digestive support, skin health, and fertility.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law - and - Caleb L. Marker, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com ONPOINT COMMUNITY: $500K Settlement in Granados Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNA GRANADOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, V. ONPOINT COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:21-cv-00847-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael Simon entered an order granting the Plaintiffs unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court also grants the Plaintiffs unopposed motion for attorney fees, costs, and service award. The Court awards Class Counsel $525,000 in attorney's fees and $29,782 in costs. The Court further approves a service award in the amount of $10,000 to Plaintiff. The Class meets the requirements for class certification. The Court finally certifies for settlement purposes the following class: "All OnPoint members who reported unauthorized, fraudulent transactions under Regulation E, whose claims were denied by OnPoint, on the basis of failure to keep safe their account credentials or negligence, between June 3, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2021." Excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who exclude themselves by submitting a request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court. The Settlement amount is $500,000. The proposed method of allocation awards each claimant a pro rata share of the Settlement Fund based on the amount of the claimant's unauthorized transfer dispute that was not reimbursed. Granados states that under the terms of the Settlement, Class Members recover more than 95 percent of their actual damages: the average amount lost was $1,556.91, and the Settlement amount provides for an average of $1,524.39 per Class Member. Based on these facts, the amount offered in the Settlement Agreement is adequate and supports approval of the Settlement. Jenna Granados brings this putative class action against OnPoint Community Credit, alleging violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), and breach of contract. Granados contends that OnPoint violated the EFTA by failing to investigate losses, failing to cover its members' losses, and asserting that it had no obligation to cover such losses. Onpoint deals with financial services such as saving accounts, loans, credit, retirement planning and insurance. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2YHqhS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David F. Sugerman, Esq. Nadia H. Dahab, Esq. SUGARMAN LAW OFFICE 707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97205 - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Blythe H. Chandle, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 - and - Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10004 The Defendant is represented by: Kimberley Hanks McGair, Esq. FARLEIGH WADA WITT 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 - and - K. Issac deVyver, Esq. Karla L. Johnson, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP Tower Two-Sixty, 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 - and - Jeffrey Paul Ehrlich, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 ORIGINAL FOOTWEAR: Butler Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ORIGINAL FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURING BR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00656 (W.D. Mich., June 13, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Hersey, Michigan and was employed by the Defendant from Feb. 26, 2024, through May 8, 2025. Additional putative Collective members were or are employed by Defendant as hourly employees during the past three years and their consent forms will also be filed in this case. The Defendant is headquartered in Big Rapids, Michigan, and employs hundreds of hourly employees in Michigan, Tennessee, and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kmilz@sommerspc.com PA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Heilner Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. The case is styled as Eric Heilner, Joshua Hall, Darrell Jesse Rivera, Johnny Quinones, Joseph Bryan Dantzler-Harris, Aaron Cunagin, Joey Hoffman, Skylar Vandevander, on behalf of ourselves and all other similarly situated v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania General Assembly; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Attorney General of the United States; United States Department of Justice; United States Congress; Verizon and any other company that uses hash sniffer program Pennsylvania State Police; Case No. 1:25-cv-01043-JPW-EW (M.D. Pa., June 10, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. The Pennsylvania Attorney General -- https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/ -- is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Appeals Vacate Order in Fishon Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to vacate and to retain jurisdiction in the lawsuit entitled Eric Fishon, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11711, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of New York's consumer protection and false advertising statutes, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, statutory penalties and injunctive relief. On Oct. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate and to retain jurisdiction, which Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted on May 2, 2025. The following orders are vacated: the November 9, 2020, Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint; the July 12, 2021, Opinion and Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC); the January 19, 2022, Opinion and Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) and denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class; the August 11, 2022, Opinion and Order denying in part and granting in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (TAC); and the May 2, 2023, Opinion and Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. The following pleadings are stricken: the FAC, filed January 21, 2021; the SAC, filed July 26, 2021; and the TAC, filed February 18, 2022. The Plaintiffs' motion for oral argument is denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled Fishon v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No. 25-1415, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 4, 2025. [BN] PILGRIM SURF: Wills Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILGRIM SURF, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03180 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.pilgrimsurfsupply.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Pilgrim Surf, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com POPSTROKE HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wilkinson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTA WILKINSON and CHANTEL ARRIOLA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POPSTROKE HOLDINGS, LLC and POP STROKE SCOTTSDALE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02013-DJH (D. Ariz., June 10, 2025) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Arizona Minimum Wage Act's tip credit and subsequent underpayment of their employees at the Arizona minimum wage rate. According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and all similarly situated workers the applicable Arizona minimum wage. As a result of these violations, the Defendants have lost the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate Plaintiffs and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for all hours worked. The Defendants have also willfully failed and refused to timely pay wages due to Plaintiffs and the Class Members. As a result of Defendants' unlawful acts, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to statutory remedies provided pursuant to the state law. Plaintiff Wilkinson has worked for Defendants as a brand ambassador and as a bartender at the PopStroke in Scottsdale, Arizona since January 2024. Plaintiff Arriola has worked for Defendants as a bartender at the PopStroke in Scottsdale, Arizona since September 2023. The Defendants operate a chain of mini-golf courses under the trade name "PopStroke" in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. Fazila Issa, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com fissa@fotylawgroup.com POWER SECURITY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ZEWDU, v. POWER SECURITY GROUP, INC., SADIQ M, HASHEMI, and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 25STCV17180 (June 13, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated alleging that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wage and premium overtime compensation, and failed to provide off-duty meal periods or premium pay in lieu thereof under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as security guard in Southern California. The Defendants provide private security patrol services to customers.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq. THE VAN VLECK LAW FIRM., LLP 5757 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 535 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (323) 920-0250 Facsimile: (323) 920-0251 E-mail: bvanvleck@vvlawgroup.com PRECISION TAX: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Waudby Says --------------------------------------------------------- JOHN WAUDBY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION TAX RELIEF, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00301-AKB (D. Idaho, June 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated PTR customers' names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial account details from hackers. On or about May 30, 2025, PTR filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. Based on the Notice, PTR detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems on May 6, 2025. In response, the company conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files on or around April 1, 2025. The Plaintiff and Class Members 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. The potential for improper disclosure and theft of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was a known risk to PTR, and thus PTR was on notice that failing to take necessary steps to secure the Private Information left it vulnerable to an attack. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Precision Tax Relief, LLC based in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, is a financial services organization that has served tens of thousands of clients across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaren Wieland, Esq. MOONEY WIELAND WARREN 512 W. Idaho St., Suite 103 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 401-9219 Facsimile: (888) 234-8543 E-mail: jaren.wieland.service@mooneywieland.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 PURE GREEN FRANCHISE: McGonigle Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure Green Franchise Corporation. The case is styled as Andrew James McGonigle, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Pure Green Franchise Corporation, Case No. 0:25-cv-61164-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Pure Green -- https://www.puregreenfranchise.com/ -- is the only cold-pressed juice company that fuels the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, and the U.S. Military.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com - and - Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com QSR NYC: Bada Seeks OT Wages for Fast Food Workers Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- MUBARAQ BADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QSR NYC LLC; QSR NY LLC; QSR EAST LLC; VALUE FOODSERVICE LLC; and JONATHAN BLOB, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-03337 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2025) seeks to recover damages for the Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt hourly fast-food positions (Fast Food Workers) who work or have worked for Defendants in New York pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York City Fair Workweek Law (Fair Workweek Law). Accordingly, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Fast Food Workers minimum wages, agreed upon wages, and overtime wages. In this regard, at times, Plaintiff and Fast Food Workers were regularly unable to take meal breaks due to the volume of in-store work. Despite this, the Defendants would apply an automatic 30-minute meal break to Plaintiff’s and Fast Food Workers' shifts, resulting in time shaved from their hours worked. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiffs and Fast Food Workers for uniform maintenance pay, spread-of-hours pay and call-in pay. Value FoodService is a large-scale quick service restaurant franchise owner and operator specializing in KFC franchises. As of January 2025, Value FoodService LLC owns and operates 59 KFC restaurants throughout the United States, with two-thirds of its KFCs in the Northeast (including New York City) and the remaining in the Southeast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Mark Gaylord, Esq. James Bouklas, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 357 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Telephone: (516) 742-4949 RALEY'S: Silva Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Leilani T. Silva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RALEY'S, a California corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CV2025-1281was removed from the Superior Court for the County of Yolo, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00752. The Plaintiff asserts 10 causes of action in her Complaint against Raley's for wage-and-hour violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts 10 causes of action for: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and Failure to Pay Vested Vacation; all in violation of California Labor Codes and California Business & Professions Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Paul J. Leaf, Esq. Justin J. Jackson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com pleaf@seyfarth.com jujackson@seyfarth.com - and - Natalie C. Kreeger, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: nkreeger@seyfarth.com SAFE HARBOR: Miami Yacht Sues Over Inflated Customer Invoices ------------------------------------------------------------- MIAMI YACHT CHARTER, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAFE HARBOR MARINAS, LLC, and SHM CHARLESTON BOATYARD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05014-RMG (D.S.C., June 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of South Carolina Statute prohibiting unfair trade practices. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful business practice of inflating customer invoices through improper "add on" charges. According to the complaint, the Defendants initially present customers with a written "work order" to identify the proposed services to be provided by the Defendants and the attendant costs. However, after the work is performed, but prior to the vessel hitting the water, an updated and supersized work order is later presented for full payment, which adds and includes unauthorized charges for services that bear no relation to actual work performed by the Defendants or the costs they incurred. As a result of the Defendants' deceptive and unconscionable corporate practices, the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers suffered damages. Miami Yacht Charter, LLC is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Safe Harbor Marinas, LLC is an owner and operator of marinas in the United States, with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. SHM Charleston Boatyard, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Safe Harbor Marinas, LLC, with its principal place of business in Charleston, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esq. MARK C. TANENBAUM, P.A. 1156 Bowman Street, Suite 245 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 577-5100 Email: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com - and - Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq. RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A. 1410 Laurel Street Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 252-4848 Email: rah@harpootlianlaw.com - and - Cristina M. Peirson, Esq. KELLEY | UUSTAL, PLC 500 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: cmp@kulaw.com madeleine@kulaw.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: J.T. Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.T., ET AL., v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., Case No. 3:23-cv-06524-LJC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on July 15, 2025, in the San Francisco Courtroom of the Honorable Lisa J. Cisneros, will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying a class herein for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. The class is defined as: "all persons who were arrested in the 3500 block of 17th Street, San Francisco, on July 8, 2023, in the mass arrest that occurred at approximately 8:40pm." The Class Representatives are J.T., C.L., and L.R. The Plaintiffs further request the Court enter an order designating them as class representatives and appointing their counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiffs also request the Court order the parties to meet and confer and present the Court, within thirty days of an order granting class certification, with a proposed notice to the certified classes. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bNAhk0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Lederman, Esq. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Esq. PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 1720 Broadway, Suite 430 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 508-4955 E-mail: rachel.lederman@justiceonline.org mvh@justiceonline.org - and - Gabriela M. Lopez, Esq. THE COMMUNITY LAW OFFICE 1720 Broadway, Suite 430 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 952-0597 E-mail: gabriela@oaklandclo.com - and - Bobbie Stein, Esq. 503 Dolores St., Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 255-0301 E-mail: Bstein8692@gmail.com SBG REVO: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Wills Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SBG REVO HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03186 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.revo.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. SBG Revo Holdings, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SCHWEBEL BAKING: Shaffer Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER SHAFFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHWEBEL BAKING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01181-BYP (N.D. Ohio, June 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately July 26, 2023, through April 29, 2025. Schwebel Baking Company is a producer of bread and other baked goods, headquartered in Youngstown, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 746-4039 Facsimile: (248) 746-4050 Email: mturner@sommerspc.com egoemann@sommerspc.com SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Islas Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sensata Technologies Inc. The case is styled as Jose Islas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sensata Technologies Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-11697 (D. Mass., June 10, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Sensata Technologies -- https://www.sensata.com/ -- is one of the world's leading suppliers of sensing, electrical protection, control and power management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SILL INC: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SILL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04689 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.thesill.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Sill, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SINAI I INC: Faces Stetsko Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- PAVEL STETSKO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SINAI I INC. d/b/a SINAI VAN SERVICE and YEFIM PORTNOV, in his individual and professional capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03222 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2025) arises from the Defendants' engagement in unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' violation of the federal and state laws by denying Plaintiff and other similarly situated spread of hours pay, and minimum and overtime wages due to a policy of time shaving; improperly deducting parking and traffic tickets from wages; failing to furnish notices of pay rate and accurate wage statements; and engaging in retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff by terminating his employment. Plaintiff Stetsko is a resident of Brooklyn, New York and Defendants employed him from May 2011 through March 6, 2025 as luxury car and ambulette driver. Sinai I Inc. owns and operates Sinai, a for-hire transportation company in Queens, New York, doing business under the name "Sinai Van Service."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. Camilo M. Burr, Esq. Brian E. Nettle, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com cburr@faruqilaw.com bnettle@faruqilaw.com SKYSKOPES INC: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Ariz. ------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ, KEVIN POWERS, BLAKE NORRIS, and RAYMOND BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SKYSKOPES, INC., LASEN, INC., DANIEL DAFFINRUD, JEFFREY FARSTAD, GARY PERSCHBACHER, TIMOTHY GOOLSBY, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01980-DJH (D. Ariz., June 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, Arizona Revised Statutes, and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, failure to timely pay wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, unfair business practices, breach of contract, unlawful wage deductions, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a human resources manager, UAV Pilot, and/or helicopter pilot at any time between January 2023 and May 2025. SkySkopes, Inc. is an aerospace company, with a principal executive office in Phoenix, Arizona. LaSen, Inc. is a company that designs and flies helicopter and drone mounted airborne pipeline inspections, with a principal executive office in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Chami, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM 8095 North 85th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 626-2359 Facsimile: (480) 613-7733 Email: dchami@consumerjustice.com SMG FOOD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ordono Extended to Sept. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class certification deadlines as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is now Sept. 8, 2025. 2. The Defendant's deadline to oppose is Oct. 8, 2025. 3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his reply to the Defendant's opposition is now Oct. 29, 2025. 4. The hearing for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be continued until Dec. 4, 2025, subject to change depending on this Court's availability. On Jan. 18, 2024, the Court entered an order establishing a schedule for class certification briefing. SMG provides management consulting services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kqL4A1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Kroll, Esq. KROLL LAW, P.C. 6230 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1135 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 845-7801 E-mail: skroll@krollpc.com STAPLES CONTRACT: Court Strikes Duplicative Bid to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Javier Felix, v. Staples Contract & Commercial LLC et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01968-KK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order striking electronically filed documents: Motion to Certify Class Duplicative of dkt. 47 Staples manufactures industrial machinery. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fHQSXk at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Parties Seek More to File Class Cert Briefing --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABIGAIL M. BROWN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01263-HYJ-MV (W.D. Mich.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for the Parties' initial facilitative mediation, discovery and class certification briefing. State operates in the financial services industry, specializing in non-life insurance. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mr8bGT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355 -0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com - and - Nicholas S. Andrews, Esq. LISS & ANDREWS, P.C. 39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 647-9700 E-mail: nandrews@lissfirm.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - Robert M. Giroux, Esq. GIROUX PAPPAS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C. 28588 Northwestern Highway, Suite 100 Southfield, MI 48034 Telephone: (248) 531-8665 E-mail: rgiroux@greatmiattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael W. Slater, Esq. Slater Seibert, Esq. SLATER SEIBERT 1500 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 250 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 509-5250 E-mail: mslater@slaterseibert.com - and - James P. Gaughan, Esq. Ariel Wilson, Esq. Kaleigh A. Barrett, Esq. RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP 1 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 471-8700 E-mail: jgaughan@rshc-law.com awilson@rshc-law.com kbarrett@rshc-law.com STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE: Cox Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Timothy Cox, and all others similarly situated v. STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 250100282 was removed from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 10, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02962 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. State National Companies, Inc. -- https://www.statenational.com/ -- is a specialty provider of property and casualty insurance operating in two niche markets, Program Services and Lender Services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: L. Anthony Dijiacomo, III, Esq. WEISBERG LAW 7 South Morton Ave. Morton, PA 19070 Phone: (610) 690-0801 Email: adijiacomo@weisberglawoffices.com STEPHEN BRETT: Betts Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY BETTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STEPHEN BRETT ARMSTRONG, LYNDSAY RICHARDSON, LEANNE QUATTRUCCI, MELINDA CROUCH, STATE ACTORS OF NORTH CAROLINA, AND JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:25-cv-00341-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify Rule 23(b)(2) class action. The class is defined as: All individuals in North Carolina, who within the past ten years, have been subjected to obstruction of court access, administrative interference with fillings, denial of disability accommodations, or retaliatory action by court officials or judicial officers acting under color of state law, in a manner that violates their constitutional rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourth Amendment. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V9onbB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Fischer Due Dec. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS FISCHER, BRIAN BLAIR and MARGARET BLAZIC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02232-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation re briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs to file Motion for Class Certification: Dec. 1, 2025 The Defendant to file Opposition: Jan. 23, 2026 The Plaintiffs to file Reply: Feb. 20, 2026 Hearing Date: March 5, 2026 On June 6, 2025, the Court set a hearing date of March 5, 2026 for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and directed the Parties to submit a stipulated briefing schedule for the motion. Swift is an American truckload motor shipping carrier based in Phoenix, Arizona. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VUMene at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan B. Piller, Esq. Frank J. White Jr., Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: npiller@schneiderwallace.com fwhite@schneiderwallace.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. John D. Ellis, Esq. Nina Montazeri, Esq. Alexis Cherry, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com acherry@sheppardmullin.com TC HEARTLAND: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TC HEARTLAND LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-04192-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order continuing its deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's class certification motion until July 8, 2025, and adopting the schedule outlined below. Event Proposed Date Deadline for Defendant to File July 8, 2025 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification, File Daubert Motions in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification, and Disclose Rebuttal Reports in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Class Certification Experts: Deadline for Plaintiff to File Reply in Aug. 15, 2025 Support of Motion for Class Certification, Oppositions to Defendant’s Daubert Motions, and Daubert Motions to Exclude Defendant’s Class Certification Experts: Deadline for Defendant to File Replies in Support of its Daubert Motions and Sept.5, 2025 Oppositions to Plaintiff’s Daubert Motions (if any): Deadline for Plaintiff to File Replies Oct. 6, 2025 in Support of Daubert Motions (if any): Class Certification and Daubert Hearing: Nov. 5, 2025 On June 9, 2025, the parties held a conference of lead counsel to discuss the parties’ ongoing discovery disputes. TC provides packaged food products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ab5HSz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Smith, Esq. Kelly M. Morrison, Esq. Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 E-mail: asmith@jenner.com kmorrison@jenner.com dpanos@jenner.com TD AMERITRADE: Jacobs Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DJAKARTA A. JACOBS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; v. TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC., and TD AMERITRADE, INC. Case No. 8:25CV16 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order that: 1. The TD Ameritrade's motions to transfer (Filing No. 32; Case No. 8:25-cv-16, Filing No. 18) are granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer case numbers 8:24-cv-499 and 8:25-cv-00016 to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 2. The California Plaintiffs' Motions to Intervene and Transfer ((Filing No. 18; Case No. 8:25-cv-16, Filing No. 7) are denied as moot without prejudice to reassertion after transfer. 3. Masud's Motion to Consolidate and Motion for a Hearing are denied as moot without prejudice to reassertion after transfer. On Dec. 24, 2024, Masud filed a putative class action complaint. He sought to certify a national class composed of: "All persons who held cash positions in retirement accounts custodied by TD Ameritrade and whose cash was deposited into IDAs through the TD Ameritrade Sweep Program from the earliest available date until the date when the TD Ameritrade retirement accounts were each transitioned into Charles Schwab retirement accounts and Charles Schwab's sweep Program" and a subclass composed of California residents." On Jan. 15, 2025, Jacobs filed her complaint. She sought to certify a national class composed of "All persons who held cash positions in brokerage accounts custodied by TD Ameritrade and whose cash was deposited into IDAs through the TD Ameritrade Sweep Program from the earliest available date until the date when the TD Ameritrade brokerage accounts were transitioned into Charles Schwab brokerage accounts." and a subclass of California residents. TD was a financial services firm headquartered in Nebraska. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Dk1Hk at no extra charge.[CC] TD AMERITRADE: Masud Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MASUD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC., Case No. 8:24CV499 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order that: 1. The TD Ameritrade's motions to transfer (Filing No. 32; Case No. 8:25-cv-16, Filing No. 18) are granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer case numbers 8:24-cv-499 and 8:25-cv-00016 to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 2. The California Plaintiffs' Motions to Intervene and Transfer ((Filing No. 18; Case No. 8:25-cv-16, Filing No. 7) are denied as moot without prejudice to reassertion after transfer. 3. Masud's Motion to Consolidate and Motion for a Hearing are denied as moot without prejudice to reassertion after transfer. On Dec. 24, 2024, Masud filed a putative class action complaint. He sought to certify a national class composed of: "All persons who held cash positions in retirement accounts custodied by TD Ameritrade and whose cash was deposited into IDAs through the TD Ameritrade Sweep Program from the earliest available date until the date when the TD Ameritrade retirement accounts were each transitioned into Charles Schwab retirement accounts and Charles Schwab's sweep Program" and a subclass composed of California residents." On Jan. 15, 2025, Jacobs filed her complaint. She sought to certify a national class composed of "All persons who held cash positions in brokerage accounts custodied by TD Ameritrade and whose cash was deposited into IDAs through the TD Ameritrade Sweep Program from the earliest available date until the date when the TD Ameritrade brokerage accounts were transitioned into Charles Schwab brokerage accounts." and a subclass of California residents. TD was a financial services firm headquartered in Nebraska. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5IMSzb at no extra charge.[CC] TORQUE FITNESS: Fernandez Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ FELIPE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORQUE FITNESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04682 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.torquefitness.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Torque Fitness, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TRADERCODES LLC: Faces Wilson Suit for Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------- Erin Wilson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tradercodes, LLC dba Algo Exchange, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03211-ELR (N.D. Ga., June 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant delivered, or caused to be delivered multiple text messages to the Plaintiff in 2025. These text messages were delivered 31 or more days after Plaintiff registered his telephone number with the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of the subject text messages in that he suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into his life, and a private nuisance, the suit alleges. Tradercodes, LLC, dba Algo Exchange, is a pioneering software company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Valerie Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave. Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Telephone: (404) 955-7732 Facsimile: (404) 745-8605 E-mail: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com VALVE CORPORATION: Welty Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Pamela Welty, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated v. VALVE CORPORATION, a corporation, Case No. CV67221 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Tuolumne, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00696-SAB. This action arises out of individual arbitrations that Plaintiff and thousands of putative class members brought against Valve before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"), alleging that Valve engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of federal antitrust laws with respect to its video gaming platform, Steam.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Virginia F. Milstead, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (213) 687-5000 Facsimile: (213) 687-5600 Email: virginia.milstead@skadden.com - and - Michael W. McTigue, Esq. Meredith C. Slawe, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 Email: michael.mctigue@skadden.com meredith.slawe@skadden.com VESTIS CORPORATION: Torres Sues Over Share Price Decline -------------------------------------------------------- CESAR TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VESTIS CORPORATION, KIMBERLY T. SCOTT, and RICKY T. DILLON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04844 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Vestis securities between May 2, 2024, to May 6, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Vestis' expected growth for the fiscal year 2025. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in their forecasting ability and, in turn, in their ability to execute strategic initiatives to improve customer experience and retention while enacting annual price increases. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Vestis' ability to grow its business; notably that Vestis would be unable to execute on planned strategic initiatives to drive purported improvements to the customer experience and its onboarding efforts in order to drive new customer growth, increased customer retention, and increased revenue from existing customers. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Vestis' securities at artificially inflated prices, notes the complaint. On May 7, 2025, Vestis announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2025, withdrew its revenue and growth guidance for the full fiscal year 2025, and provided guidance for the third quarter of fiscal 2025 that fell significantly below market expectations. The Company attributed its poor results partially to "lost business in excess of new business," but primarily on "lower adds over stops, which is how we describe volume changes with our existing customers." The Company attributed its decision to pull full-year guidance and provide disappointing third quarter targets to the "increasingly uncertain macro environment." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Vestis' revelation. The price of Vestis' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $8.71 per share on May 6, 2025, Vestis' stock price fell to $5.44 per share on May 7, 2025, a decline of about 37.54% in the span of just a single day, alleges the suit. Vestis is a North American company that provides uniform rentals and workplace supplies across the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com VIDA SHOES: Fernandez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIDA SHOES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04688 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.brunomagli.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Vida Shoes International, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Beecher Sues Over Defective Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------ Janice Beecher and Omar Hakkaoui on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-09555 (D.N.J., June 10, 2025), is brought arising from a defect found in the 2021-2023 model year Volkswagen ID.4 (the "Class Vehicles"). The Defendant touted that the Class Vehicles are all-electric SUVs with safe technology. Defendant boasts that the Class Vehicles adopt technology "that help make it easier than ever to adopt the EV lifestyle" and technology that is "safety enhancing and intelligent." However, Defendant manufactured, marketed, and distributed the Class Vehicles without disclosing a key defect in material, workmanship, and/or design. Specifically, the Class Vehicles' overly touch sensitive capacitive steering wheels automatically engage Adaptive Cruise Control ("ACC") with a mere light brush of the hand over the steering wheel's haptic controls. This results in sudden and unintended acceleration while owners are driving the Class Vehicle. Plaintiffs have been involved in fatal crashes because of the Defect, leaving them terrified and hesitant to drive their Class Vehicles. Despite knowledge of the Defect from customer complaints, information sent from dealers, and its own internal records, Defendant has not offered its customers suitable repairs or replacements free of charge or offered to reimburse its customers. Instead, Defendant's investigations of Plaintiffs' complaints have continually led Defendant to conclude that the crashes with Class Vehicles were due to 'driver error' and had nothing to do with the Defect. The Plaintiffs have suffered harm as a result of Defendant's decision not to disclose the Defect in the Class Vehicles. Plaintiffs purchased Class Vehicles which suffer from the Defect, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased a Class Vehicle. The Defendant has designed, manufactured, imported, distributed, offered for sale, sold, and leased the Class Vehicles with the knowledge and intent to market, sell, and lease them in all fifty states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard T. Longman, Esq. LONGMAN LAW, P.C. 354 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 1800 Livingston, N.J. 07039 Phone: (973) 994-2315 Email: Hlongman@longman.law - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington D.C. 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 6810 N. St. Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Phone: (561) 569-6283 Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com VSHRED LLC: Settles Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $4-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that V Shred has agreed to a $4 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it shared personal information without consent. The V Shred settlement benefits anyone who purchased products or services from V Shred and affiliate channels, including Sculptnation and Amazon, or who participated in V Shred's online quiz after Jan. 1, 2022. According to a V Shred class action lawsuit, the company violated privacy laws by sharing personal information with third parties without consent. This allegedly violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) and the Florida Security of Communications Act. V Shred is a fitness and nutrition company that sells supplements and workout programs. V Shred hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $4 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the V Shred settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of participating class members. Each class member is estimated to receive up to $10 from the settlement. Class members may receive a smaller payment depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 11, 2025. The final approval hearing for the V Shred class action settlement is scheduled for Sept. 10, 2025. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 11, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased products or services from V Shred and affiliate channels, including Sculptnation and Amazon, or participated in V Shred's online quiz since Jan. 1, 2022. Potential Award Up to $10 Proof of Purchase Proof of third party account (Facebook, X, TikTok, Snap or Google) 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 08/11/2025 Case Name Bolanos, et al. v. VShred LLC, Case No. CACE-25-001211, in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida Final Hearing 09/10/2025 Settlement Website VShredPrivacyESettlement.com Claims Administrator V Shred Privacy Settlement c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 420-3963 Class Counsel Alec Leslie BURSOR & FISHER PA Defense Counsel Brian Procel PROCEL LAW PC [GN] WALGREEN CO: McGill Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mark Anthony McGill, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., an Illinois corporation; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., a Delaware corporation; JAMES TITUS, an individual California resident; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2500222 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01422. The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") alleges the following class and representative claims based on alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code, including: failure to pay all wages including minimum and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide recovery periods; failure to implement heat prevention & maintain legal temperature controls; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse for necessary business expenditures; violation of California's quota laws; and unfair business practices. The FAC also seeks penalties and relief under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Max Fischer, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. Anahi Cruz, Esq. Ilana Gomez, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: max.fischer@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com ilana.gomez@morganlewis.com WHITE FLOWER: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Fernandez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE FLOWER FARM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04686 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.whiteflowerfarm.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. White Flower Farm, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com XIAO-I CORP: Milev Appeals Ruling to N.Y. Appellate Division ------------------------------------------------------------ BOZHIDAR MILEV, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Bozhidar Milev, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. XIAO-I Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 653294/2024, in the Lower Court of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Xiao-I securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with Xiao-I's March 8, 2023 initial public offering ("IPO" or "Offering"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The appellate case is captioned Bozhidar Milev et al. vs. XIAO-I Corporation et al., Case No. 25-03535, in the First Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on June 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JEREMY ZIELINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jonathan Stern, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: jstern@rosenlegal.com [] Mediators Resolving Complex Class Actions -------------------------------------------- A report by Class Action Updates takes a look at 25 of the Top Mediators in the country. Mediators play a significant role in class action litigation. Class actions often involve numerous plaintiffs, complex claims, and high stakes. Mediators help bridge gaps between parties, fostering negotiated settlements that avoid lengthy, costly trials. Mediators streamline discussions by organizing issues like damages, class certification, and equitable relief, ensuring all parties' interests are addressed efficiently. They provide an impartial view, helping parties assess risks realistically, which is critical when defendants face massive liability or plaintiffs risk losing at trial. Courts may require or encourage mediation in class actions to reduce docket congestion, making mediators integral to the process. Mediation isn't mandatory in every case. If parties are too far apart or one side believes they'll win outright, mediation may fail or be skipped. Strong judicial oversight can also reduce reliance on mediators. Here are 25 of the active mediators serving the class action industry: CHARLES A. BUFORD, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP HON. WILLIAM J. CAHILL (RET.), JAMS DENNIS CLIFFORD, Clifford Dispute Resolution HON. VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, N.D. Cal. Magistrate judge ZACHARY FASMAN, Fasman ADR BRUCE FRIEDMAN, JAMS ROBERT G. GUM, Gum, Puckett Mackechnie Coffin & Matula, LLP HUNTER R. HUGHES III, Hunter ADR DESHA L. JACKSON, Desha Jackson Law Group HON. PARIS K. KALLAS, Judicial Dispute Resolution LLC HON. LISA LENIHAN, Judge Lenihan ADR GLENN LERMAN, ADR Services, Inc. RODNEY A. MAX, Upchurch Watson White & Max HON. LOUIS M. MEISINGER (RET.), Signature Resolution, LLC JED MELNICK, JAMS ROBERT A. MEYER, JAMS HON. KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Judicate West MONIQUE NGO-BONNICI, Signature Resolution TRIPPER ORTMAN, Ortman Mediation BENNETT G. PICKER, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP HON. LAYN R. PHILLIPS, Phillips ADR Enterprises MARK D. SHEPARD, Mark Shepard Mediation HON. WARREN K. WINKLER, Arbitration Place RANDALL W. WULFF, Wulff Quinby Sochynsky MICHELLE YOSHIDA, Phillips ADR Enterprises Class Action Updates is reader-supported. To receive new posts, consider becoming a subscriber. Visit https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o1GOua ********* 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 ***