250626.mbx

250626.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 26, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 127 Headlines ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 16, 2026 ADDICTION AND MENTAL: F.P. Sues Over Failure to Protect Information AKIMA GLOBAL: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Yeend Class Suit ALLSTATE FIRE: Insureds Win Class Certification in Dorazio Suit ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Certifies Class Suit Over Unpaid Benefits ALN MEDICAL: Cottons's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ALN MEDICAL: Gilleland's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ALN MEDICAL: Hurley's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ALN MEDICAL: Judka's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ALN MEDICAL: Mullis's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ALT FRAGRANCES: Faces Wills Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AMERICAN HONDA: $9.58MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Class Counsel AMY PECHACEK: Bemke's Rule 23 Class Cert Bid Granted in Part ANTHONY WILLS: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Ruling Tossed BAGCRAFTPAPERCON III: Faces Suarez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California BAKER COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 30 BALLAJ: Filing for Class Certification Amended to Jan. 27, 2026 BELK INC: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits Over Data Breach BIG ROCK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges BRADFORD HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hussey Alleges BRADFORD HEALTH: Wiezorek Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info CANTALOUPE INC: M&A Investigates Merger With 365 Retail Markets CAPSTONE LAW: Lee Sues Over Constitutional Labor Right Violations COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Scott Suit Removed to C.D. California COMMUNITY CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gates Alleges CRUMBL LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages DAIKIN COMFORT: Perez Suit Removed to E.D. California DELPHINUS ENGG: Bid to Initially OK Settlement Tossed DREW BOSTOCK: Bid to Stay Partial Summary Judgment Briefing Tossed DRINK LMNT: Faces Class Suit Over Electrolyte Drinks' False Ads DRINK LMNT: Hippe Must File Bid for Class Certification by Sept. 5 DROPBOX INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website E. I. DUPONT: Drinking Water Contains Toxic Chemicals, Kennedy Says ELON MUSK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in McAferty Due April 1, 2026 EPISOURCE LLC: Wharton Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info ETHEL M. CHOCOLATES: Senior Sues Over Website's Access Barriers FEINGOLD LLC: Conspires to Steal Investor Funds, Siriani Suit Says FORD MOTOR: Bid for Class Cert. in Barnes Continued to Nov. 10 FRANKYS CLEANING: Benitez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages FRESH EXPRESS: Rosa Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois GARRISON INVESTMENT: Messer Appeals Court Order to 4th Circuit GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Inadequate Notice of Recalled Vehicles GLOBAL TEL: Bid for Class Certification in Parkell Tossed as Moot GMET COMMUNICATOINS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graham Alleges GOOGLE INC: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended by 60 Days GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fischer Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class GUAM: Xiong Appeals Court Order in Class Suit to 9th Circuit HEALTH CARE: Rutherford's Bid for Class Certification OK'd in Part HEXO CORP: Appeals Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit HUMBLE BUNDLE: Filing for Class Certification Due March 20, 2026 IL BACCO RISTORANTE: Faces Tomin Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ISOMEDIX OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Whitaker Says KIM KOVOL: Mary Seeks to Amend Bid for Class Certification KINGS 7 DELI: Ramirez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Deli Workers KIPLING APPAREL: Agrees to Settle False Discount Class Action Suit LEMONADE INC: Faces Rich Suit Over Disclosure of Customers' Info LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Suit Says MICHAELS MANAGEMENT: Must Respond to SAC by July 11 MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Lynch Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30 NORDVPN SA: Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewals OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Dalton Claims PAROLE COMMISSION: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response PINK JEEP: Collective Decertification Bid in Slepian Suit Tossed PUIG NORTH: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind REPUBLIC SERVICES: Red Barn Sues Over Unlawful Rate Increases ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Drop in Share Price SELECT REHABILITATION: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by August 29 SHADE STORE: Class Cert Hearing in Crowder Continued to Sept. 10 SHADE STORE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Briefing SHADE STORE: Parties Seek Sept. 10 Class Cert Hearing SHIELD PROTECTIVE: Bid for Conditional Certification Due Sept. 19 SMG FOOD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ordono Suit Due Sept. 8 STAGE HOUSE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Claude Says SUAREZ CONSTRUCTION: Tinajero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SUMMIT PLASTIC: Faces Turner Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT SUNO INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Copyrighted Songs TEMPUS AI: Shouse Sues Over Share Price Decline VESTIS CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 8 WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Texts WOOFTOWN WEST: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wills Says WORKFITNESS LLC: Wills Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind YRV ENTERPRISE: Briefing for Conditional Class Cert. Bid Stayed ********* ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 16, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY W. RAY, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Case No. 1:22-cv-00898-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joe L. Webster entered an order granting joint oral motion for extension of case management deadlines. The fact and expert discovery deadline as well as the mediation deadline shall be extended through and including February 17, 2026. Expert disclosures on any issue on which a party bears the burden of proof are due by Dec. 17, 2025; any responses to those expert disclosures are due by Jan. 21, 2026; and any rebuttals are due by Feb. 4, 2026. The deadline to move for class certification shall be March 16, 2026; the deadline for opposing the motion for class certification shall be April 13, 2026; and the deadline for filing a reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be April 27, 2026. The deadline to file dispositive motions shall be June 26, 2026. The parties shall not anticipate any further extension of said deadlines. AdaptHealth provides home medical equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H3eB8U at no extra charge.[CC] ADDICTION AND MENTAL: F.P. Sues Over Failure to Protect Information ------------------------------------------------------------------- F.P. and C.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, LLC D/B/A BRADFORD HEALTH SERVICES, Case No. 2:25-cv-00915-SGC (N.D. Ala., June 11, 2025), is brought seeking to restore themselves and class members as close to the same position as they would have occupied but for Defendant's wrongful conduct, namely Defendant's failure to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information. In its Notice of Privacy Practices, Bradford expressly states that it is "required by law to maintain the privacy and security of your Protected Health Information and records;" and that it is "required to notify you if there is a breach of your unsecured Protected Health Information or unsecured records." Yet Bradford failed to comply with both of these legal obligations, leaving Bradford's current and former patients and employees suffering the ongoing, long- term effects of a data breach Defendant hid from them for more than eighteen months. On December 8, 2023, Bradford discovered that it was the subject of a massive data breach whereby hackers gained unauthorized access to its networks (the "Data Breach"). On May 30, 2025, Bradford posted a Notice of Data Security Incident ("Notice") on its website, disclosing the Data Breach for the first time. The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' identities have been and continue to be at a heightened risk of exposure because of Defendant's negligent conduct since Private Information that Defendant collected from them and stored is now in the hands of data thieves. As a direct result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered fraud and will continue to be exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft, including medical fraud, potentially for the rest of their lives. Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, and their medical accounts to guard against medical identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and Class Members relied on Defendant to keep their Private Information secure and safeguarded for authorized purposes. Bradford is a recognized provider of comprehensive substance abuse treatment and recovery services throughout the southeastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy E. Keller, Esq. Nada Djordjevic, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn St., Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com - and - Eli Hare, Esq. DiCELLO LEVITT LLP 505 20th Street North, Suite 1500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 855-5700 Email: ehare@dicellolevitt.com - and - Richard A. Freese, Esq. Jackson A. Freese, Esq. FREESE & GOSS PLLC Regions Harbert Plaza 1901 6th Avenue North, Ste. 3120 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 871-4144 Email: rich@freeseandgoss.com jackson@freeseandgoss.com - and - Harlan F.Winn, Esq. Adam P. Plant, Esq. BATTLE & WINN LLP 2901 Second Avenue South, Suite 220 Birmingham, AL 35233 Phone: (205) 397-8160 Fax: (205) 397-8179 Email: hwinn@battlewinn.com aplant@battlewinn.com AKIMA GLOBAL: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Yeend Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Dalila Yeend, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Akima Global Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01281, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. On Sept. 3, 2020, the Plaintiffs commenced this action against the Defendant in New York State Supreme Court, asserting state law claims pertaining to their civil immigration detention at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility ("BFDF"). On Oct. 16, 2020, the Defendant removed this action to federal court. On Sept. 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with class action allegations and claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). On Feb. 8, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. On Apr. 9, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to strike. On Mar. 31, 2025, Judge Anne M. Nardacci entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and motion to strike. In sum, the Court concludes that factual disputes preclude summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims that detainee labor in the Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") inequitably benefited the Defendant, at the expense of detainees, by enabling the Defendant to fulfill its contractual obligations in the detainee housing units and kitchen. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion as to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims. The appellate case is entitled Dalila Yeend, et al. v. Akima Global Services, LLC, Case No. 25-1455, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DALILA YEEND, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Allison Frick, Esq. Alanna G. Kaufman, Esq. Alyssa Isidoridy, Esq. KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP 18E, 48th Street, Suite 802 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 660-2332 Email: africk@kllf-law.com aisidoridy@kllf-law.com - and - Maureen Hussain, Esq. Cristina Brito, Esq. Olivia Post Rich, Esq. WORKER JUSTICE CENTER OF NEW YORK 9 Main Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 331-6615 Email: mhussain@wjcny.org cbrito@wjcny.org opostrich@wjcny.org Defendant-Appellant AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC is represented by: Jessica L. Marrero, Esq. Amiel J. Provosty, Esq. Heather F. Crow, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM 1100 Poydras St., Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 524-4162 Facsimile: (504) 596-4114 Email: JLM@kullmanlaw.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Insureds Win Class Certification in Dorazio Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Dorazio, v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00017-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Krissa Lanham entered an order granting Dorazio's motion for class certification of Allstate insureds: "All insured persons under one or more [Allstate policies] issued in Arizona to the same purchaser covering multiple vehicles at the time of a covered loss who, from the earliest allowable time to the date judgment enters, received UM/UIM benefits in an amount equal to the limits of only one of the UM/UIM coverages under the applicable policy or policies." The Plaintiff Brian Dorazio had an auto insurance policy with defendant Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company. The policy covered four vehicles and purported to have a per-person limit of $100,000. In 2021, Dorazio's daughter was seriously injured in an accident with an uninsured non-party in which she suffered more than $100,000 in damages. Allstate refused to pay more than $100,000 and Dorazio filed this suit. Dorazio seeks to certify a class of Allstate policyholders who had multiple insured vehicles, suffered damages in excess of the policy limit claimed by Allstate, but were paid only the per-person policy limit. Dorazio is the father of A.D. In 2021, A.D. was seven years old and seriously injured in a car accident where an uninsured non-party was at fault. Dorazio had a policy with Allstate covering four vehicles with "per person" UI/UIM limits of $100,000. The Court further entered an order: -- designating plaintiff Brian Dorazio as Class Representative for the class and appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel. -- denying Dorazio's motion to strike testimony and report of L. Lamar Blount. -- denying Allstate's motion for leave to file a sur-reply. -- denying Dorazio's motion for summary judgment. -- denying Allstate's motion to exclude expert report and testimony of Steven Guy with leave to reinstate closer to trial. -- denying Allstate's motion to exclude expert report and testimony of Lance Kaufman with leave to reinstate closer to trial. -- denying Allstate's motion for summary judgment. Allstate offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dfFHzs at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Certifies Class Suit Over Unpaid Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Casey, writing for KJZZ, reports that a federal judge has approved a class of Arizonans hurt in vehicle accidents while holding Allstate insurance policies. Those Arizonans argue in a lawsuit the company did not pay fully the benefits they deserved. Allstate did not reply to a request for comment. The insurer can appeal class action certification in the case over stacked benefits. Plaintiff's attorney John DeStefano said for years Allstate should have paid customers their coverage limit multiplied by the number vehicles on a single policy, after being hurt in accidents by other drivers with little or no insurance of their own. "These lawsuits will make a meaningful difference, especially to people who were already injured and underpaid by tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars," DeStefano said. He says his firm represents Arizona consumers in cases against other insurance companies with similar allegations. "We're hopeful companies will see the writing on the wall and change their practices. So that going forward, they won't have to face these kind of lawsuits. And their customers will get the benefits that they're entitled to," DeStefano said. [GN] ALN MEDICAL: Cottons's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cotton v. ALN Medical Management LLC et al. (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-CV-3082 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qzwbta at no extra charge.[CC] ALN MEDICAL: Gilleland's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gilleland v. ALN Medical Management, LLC (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-CV-3080 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4rGt6J at no extra charge.[CC] ALN MEDICAL: Hurley's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hurley v. ALN Medical Management LLC (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-CV-3075 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PaOu98 at no extra charge.[CC] ALN MEDICAL: Judka's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Judka v. ALN Medical Management, LLC (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-CV-3074 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SvvZeJ at no extra charge.[CC] ALN MEDICAL: Mullis's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mullis v. ALN Medical Management LLC, et al. (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-cv-03096-SMB-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RH8XYo at no extra charge.[CC] ALT FRAGRANCES: Faces Wills Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALT FRAGRANCES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03179 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.altfragrances.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and visually impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on the website, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. ALT Fragrances, LLC operates the website that offers designer fragrances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com AMERICAN HONDA: $9.58MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Class Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABERIN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-04384-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered a final approval order and judgment: 1. The Court finds, upon review of the Settlement and consideration of the relevant factors listed under Rule 23(e)(2) and discussed in In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011), that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, the Settlement is finally approved by the Court. 2. Based upon the record before the Court, its earlier order granting motion for class certification, all submissions in support of the Settlement and for modification of the earlier order granting motion for class certification, the 10 objections and 57 opt-out requests, as well as the Settlement Agreement itself, the Court certifies a Class of: "all persons who purchased the following Acura vehicles before the vehicles reached 10 years/120,000 miles: 2004-2008 TL, 2005-2008 MDX, or 2007-2009 RDX in the States of California, Kansas, New York and Washington." 3. Excluded from the Class are the Defendant and its parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates; all persons who properly elect to be excluded from the Classes; governmental entities; and the undersigned Judge to whom this case is assigned and his immediate family. 4. The Court grants Class Counsel an award of reasonable Attorneys' fees, in the amount of $8,555,519.50, and reimbursement of costs and expenses in the amount of $1,026,270.91, in the total amount of $9,581,790.41. The Court also grants each Named Plaintiff an incentive award in the amount of $5,000. American develops and manufactures automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yheuqv at no extra charge.[CC] AMY PECHACEK: Bemke's Rule 23 Class Cert Bid Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN BEMKE, SCOTT COLLETT, JOHN FERIOZZI, JUDY FINTZ, SARAH JAMIESON, EVAN JOHNSON, TRACY LONG and CLIFFORD NEUMANN, on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated individuals, v. AMY PECHACEK, in her official capacity As Secretary-designee of the State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Case No. 3:21-cv-00560-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order that: 1. The parties' stipulation as to numerosity is adopted. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class under Rule 23 is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted with respect to subclasses 1 and 2, and the court certifies the following subclasses: a) Individuals who applied for unemployment benefits in Wisconsin after September 7, 2015, but were denied benefits because they received SSDI benefits; and b) Individuals who were ordered to repay unemployment benefits that they received in Wisconsin after Sept. 7, 2015, because they also received SSDI benefits. The motion is denied in all other respects. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for the appointment of Paul Kinne of Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs; Heath Straka of Axley Brynelson, LLP; and Victor Forberger as class counsel is granted. 4. The Defendant may have until June 27, 2025 to file a response to the two issues identified in the plaintiffs' reply brief on remedies and to address whether reprocessing of class members' claims would constitute appropriate relief. The Plaintiffs may have until July 11, 2025, to file a reply. 5. The final pretrial conference set for Aug. 5, 2025, is cancelled, and the second final pretrial conference set for Aug. 12, 2025 is converted to an oral argument on remedies. 6. The remaining deadlines are also struck. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on behalf of themselves and others who were eligible for and received social security disability insurance (“SSDI”) benefits, but after losing part-time work, were either denied unemployment benefits outright or were compelled to repay those benefits. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FbDEd9 at no extra charge.[CC] ANTHONY WILLS: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Ruling Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCELLUS FRENCH, ALLEN FORD, CHAPPEL CRAIGEN, v. ANTHONY WILLS, STERRETT, Case No. 3:24-cv-01462-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order denying the Plaintiff French's motion to reconsider the Court's previous ruling on class certification. The Plaintiff Ford's motion regarding his filing fee is GRANTED, and a ruling on Plaintiff French's motion for a preliminary injunction is deferred. The Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff French's motion within 21 days. To the extent that French simply asks for reconsideration of the Court's earlier ruling on class certification, his Motion (Doc. 61) must be denied because the Court's ruling was legally appropriate. Pro se inmates cannot represent each other, and thus this Court does not have the ability to allow this matter to proceed as a class action while handled by two or three pro se inmates. Finally, the Plaintiff French has filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction that speaks solely about his own ability to attend religious services, and which bears only his signature. The case is filed jointly by Marcellus French, Allen Ford, and Chappel Craigen, all inmates of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) who currently reside at Menard Correctional Center (Menard). A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sKxp8b at no extra charge.[CC] BAGCRAFTPAPERCON III: Faces Suarez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------- LYDA P. SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAGCRAFTPAPERCON III, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV16636 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay workers for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay earned wages upon separation of employment, and failure to provide accurate sick pay. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a bag packer in or around November 2023. Bagcraftpapercon III, LLC is a packaging company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 101 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1450 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 Email: hm@messrelianlaw.com BAKER COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAKER v. Baker County, Case No. 2:24-cv-01503 (D. Or., Filed Sept. 7, 2024), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered an order adopting the case scheduling outlined by the parties in the Joint Statement Regarding Case Schedule as follows: The deadline file motions to compel fact discovery is September 8, 2025. The deadline to amend pleadings or join parties is September 29, 2025. Fact discovery is to be completed by September 29, 2025. Initial expert disclosures are due by October 30, 2025; rebuttal expert disclosures are due by December 1, 2025. The deadline to file a class certification motion is October 30, 2025; the deadline to respond is December 1, 2025, and any reply in support of the class certification motion is due December 30, 2025. The last date to file any motion to compel expert discovery is December 8, 2025, and responses to such motions are due no later than 14 calendar days after the initiating motion is filed; no replies are permitted for discovery motions. Expert discovery is to be completed by December 22, 2025. Joint Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts is due on January 5, 2026. Joint ADR Report and any dispositive motions are due no later than February 16, 2026. The Parties are ordered to provide a jointly proposed pretrial schedule within 14 days of this Court's ruling on any dispositive motions, if appropriate. Pretrial Order and Verdict Form, if appropriate, are due within 14 days of this Court's order on any dispositive motions. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] BALLAJ: Filing for Class Certification Amended to Jan. 27, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez, et al., v. Ballaj, Case No. 2:23-cv-02965 (E.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order amending the scheduling order in light of the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification: The plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than Jan. 27, 2026. The Defendant shall file his opposition no later than Feb. 27, 2026. The plaintiffs shall file their reply brief no later than March 27, 2026. The court vacates all other dates and deadlines, to be reset in accordance with the parties' stipulation following the court's ruling on the anticipated motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] BELK INC: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Muccigrosso, writing for the Charlotte Observer, reports that two lawsuits were filed this week in federal court against Belk for a data breach and then for allegedly concealing the cyberattack. In both cases, the Plaintiffs are also seeking certification for class-action suits. Belk failed to protect sensitive personal current and former employee and customer information, according to the lawsuits, and has yet to provide information or details about the data breach that occurred sometime between May 7 and May 11. In both cases, the plaintiffs seek monetary damages and demand a jury trial. Belk did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the lawsuits Thursday, June 19. Last month, all Belk department stores had a computer "system shutdown," The Charlotte Observer reported on May 19. Belk had not publicly shared information about the system problems, and company officials have not responded to repeated requests for comment. The 136-year-old Charlotte-based department store chain has nearly 300 stores in 16 Southeast states. Claims in the first lawsuit The first case was filed by Andrew Davis of Kings Mountain and a former employee related to the data breach. Cyber criminals accessed and stole internal documents from Belk's systems, including names and Social Security numbers, according to the lawsuit. Belk disclosed the breach in a June, 5, 2025, letter to the New Hampshire Attorney General, but has "failed to notify victims in a timely and transparent way," according to the lawsuit. Personal information for one New Hampshire resident was accessed by an unauthorized third party, Belk's attorney Peter Carey said in a letter attached to the lawsuit. Belk discovered the incident on May 8, according to a notice of data breach that would be sent to the resident. "Belk was the victim of a cyber incident in which an unauthorized third party gained access to certain corporate systems," the company said in the notice. "We took immediate steps in response to the incident to stop the unauthorized access and secure our systems. We also conducted a thorough investigation, which included our full cooperation with law enforcement." Belk also said "the investigation of the potentially affected data is ongoing." Belk's attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Attorneys with Milberg Coleman Bryston Phillips Grossman in Raleigh and Coral Gables, Florida, and Federman and Sherwood in Oklahoma City and Dallas represent the plaintiff. Claims in the other suit The second case was filed Tuesday, June 17, by Andrea Larson of Charlotte related to a data breach exposing Social Security numbers of Belk's employees due to "inadequate cybersecurity measures," according to the lawsuit. Owens says her data was among the stolen and that she has since been targeted with phishing attempts and suspicious account alerts, including attempts to access a Coinbase account that she did not open, according to the lawsuit. Attorneys with Milberg Coleman Bryston Phillips Grossman in Raleigh, and Stranch, Jennings and Garvey in Nashville, Tennessee, represent the plaintiff. According to both lawsuits, Belk failed to follow Federal Trade Commission guidelines and did not implement reasonable cybersecurity safeguards, left data unencrypted and vulnerable, and knew about cybersecurity threats and failed to act responsibly. As a result, the plaintiffs and potential class members must closely monitor their financial accounts long-term for fraud and identity theft, according to the lawsuits. [GN] BIG ROCK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIG ROCK INDUSTRIES INC., dba BIG ROCK LANDSCAPING; AMERICAN BENEFITS COMPANY, INC.; RUSS TAYLOR; BRANDON HATCH; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00443 (D. Utah, June 3, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendants as a framer. Big Rock Industries Inc. specializes in outdoor lighting which includes landscape lighting concepts, lighting installs, and outdoor string light designs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. Austin D. Sork, Esq. SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC 1414 E. Murray Holladay Road Holladay UT 84117 Telephone: (833) 201-0213 Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com asork@shimodalaw.com BRADFORD HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hussey Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD HUSSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRADFORD HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00861-MHH (N.D. Ala., June 3, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health information ("PHI") medical information, and other personally identifiable information. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by: intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard patients' PII and PHI; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; failing to monitor and timely detect the Data Breach; failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach; and failing to provide effective credit protection services after notification of the Data Breach. As a result of the Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, the Defendant's patients' PII and PHI is now in the hands of thieves who, upon information and belief, have committed criminal acts against Class Members by misusing their data and/or have published their data on the internet for others to misuse. The Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to spend, significant amounts of time and money to protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data Breach and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft and financial fraud, the suit alleges. Bradford Health Services, LLC offers addiction treatment programs. The Company provides outpatient programs, detox, extended care programs, medication assisted programs, veteran recovery, chronic pain, and telehealth services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com BRADFORD HEALTH: Wiezorek Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL WIEZOREK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRADFORD HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00879-GMB (N.D. Ala., June 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard patients' personally identifiable information, protected health information, as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and other medical and financial information. On or about December 8, 2023, the Defendant noticed unusual activity within its network systems. After noticing this activity, the Defendant immediately took steps to secure their network systems and brought in independent digital forensics and incident response firm to investigate the suspicious activity. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect patients' PII/PHI, says the suit. On behalf of himself and Class Members, the Plaintiff bring this lawsuit because he has suffered, and will continue to suffer, actual injuries and damages as a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant's wrongful actions and/or inactions and the resulting data breach including, but not limited to, unauthorized disclosure, publication, and dissemination of their PII/PHI on the internet, misuse of their PII/PHI, identity theft, financial fraud, loss of money and time in combatting the attempted and actual identity theft and fraud, and emotional distress. Bradford Health Services, LLC provides addiction treatment programs throughout the Southeast U.S. that are in-network with most major insurance providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CANTALOUPE INC: M&A Investigates Merger With 365 Retail Markets --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Cantaloupe, Inc. (NASDAQ: CTLP) related to its sale to 365 Retail Markets, LLC for $11.20 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cantaloupe-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] CAPSTONE LAW: Lee Sues Over Constitutional Labor Right Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDDY WAI YIP LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEORGE CARDONA, in his official capacity as Chief Trial Counsel of STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; LUIS MENDOZA, individual; CAPSTONE LAW APC, California Corporation; MELISSA GRANT, individual; BEVIN ALLEN PIKE, individual; JOHN STOBART, individual; DANIEL JONATHAN, individual; TRISHA MONESI, individual; SHEALENE MANCUSO, individual; RYAN WU, individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-04845-NC (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of constitutional and statutory labor rights, breach of fiduciary duty/professional negligence, and equitable/implied contractual indemnity. The case arises from Capstone Defendants' alleged violations of the constitutional and statutory labor rights of the Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly workers of West Coast Quartz Corporation including suspension of meal break freedom, interference with their rights, infringement on private affairs, and lost working hours. Moreover, the Chief Trial Counsel Defendant took no actions, refused, neglected, and/or otherwise unreasonably and knowingly failed to take any steps toward investigating and correcting wrong doings of Capstone Defendants despite receiving these detailed complaints. As a result of the Chief Trial Counsel's actions and omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly workers have been harmed, says the suit. Capstone Law APC is a law corporation located in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Song, Esq. BHS LAW, LLP 2559 S. Bascom Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Telephone: (408) 628-4257 Facsimile: (408) 628-4258 Email: Briansong@Bhslawllp.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Scott Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lyn Scott, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25STCV12416 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 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05268-CBM-AS. The Plaintiff alleges that Colgate knew or should have known that the Products "contain or were at risk of containing dangerously high levels of heavy metals like lead and mercury," but "omitted this information on packaging and otherwise failed to warn about the presence or risk of presence of dangerous heavy metals." THE Plaintiff asserts four causes of action on behalf of herself and the putative class: Violation of California Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"); Violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA"); Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Under the Song-Beverly Act; and Unjust Enrichment/Quasi-Contract.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Willis M. Wagner, Esq. Sean A. Newland, Esq. Rocco Pallin, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 442-1111 Facsimile: (916) 448-1709 Email: will.wagner@gtlaw.com sean.newland@gtlaw.com rocco.pallin@gtlaw.com COMMUNITY CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gates Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JAQUETTA GATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF ABERDEEN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00087-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss., June 3, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Gates was employed by the Defendant as a nursing assistant. Community Care Center of Aberdeen, LLC operates a skilled nursing facility in Monroe County, Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 Email: jack@simpson-pllc.com CRUMBL LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that in a new class action complaint, popular cookie company Crumbl LLC is being sued for allegedly sending telephone solicitation text messages to numbers on the National DNC Registry in violation of the TCPA. The suit was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan by plaintiff Victoria Soboleski—the very same plaintiff currently suing Michael Kors over similar allegations. Sobolenski v. Crumbl LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11839-JEL-DRG. NOT SO STYLISH?: Michael Kors Faces TCPA Class Action -- TCPAWorld In fact, this will be (including the Michael Kors lawsuit) her seventh TCPA lawsuit (2 filed in 2024, 5 filed in June of 2025): -- Soboleski v. Party Pizza Roseville, Inc., 2:24-cv-13138 -- Soboleski v. Luminess Direct LLC, 2:24-cv-13397 -- Soboleski v. Clutch, Inc., 2:25-cv-11698 -- Soboleski v. MCM Products USA Inc., 2:25-cv-11699 -- Soboleski v. TerrAscend Corp., 4:25-cv-11763 And in each of these cases, she is/was represented by the Wolf, Anthony Paronich. Here, the plaintiff is alleging that Crumbl sent telephone solicitations to her number that she registered on the National DNC Registry without her consent (and that those messages were intended for someone else). The plaintiff seeks to represent the following class: All persons throughout the United States (1) who did not provide their telephone number to Crumble LLC, (2) to whom Crumble LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one voice message or text message within a 12-month period, promoting Crumble LLC 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 Crumble LLC 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. Again, the TCPA restricts telephone solicitations to individuals who have registered their numbers on the National 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. Crumbl's lawyers will undoubtedly be looking for any purchase history. If Soboleski bought a cookie from Crumbl in the last 18 months, Crumbl can raise the "Established Business Relationship" defense, which could crumble the plaintiff's ability to represent the class. We'll be watching to see how it pans out. [GN] DAIKIN COMFORT: Perez Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Victor Perez, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTION, INC. dba DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DIST INC., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UDE-2025-6316 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01621-TLN-CSK. The Complaint alleges eight causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime; Meal Period Liability Under Labor Code; Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Comply with Labor Code; Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures Under Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Keep Required Payroll Records Under Labor Code; Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code; and Violation of Business & Profession Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Justin T. Curley, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com - and - Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: pebsworth@seyfarth.com jnordlander@seyfarth.com DELPHINUS ENGG: Bid to Initially OK Settlement Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WILSTERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELPHINUS ENGINEERING, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01810-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Paul S. Diamond will deny the Plaintiff's motion without prejudice. Without greater detail respecting precisely what "discovery" and "exhaustive investigations" took place, and actual evidence showing that "arm's length" negotiations took place, the GMC factors preclude preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. In re GMC, 55 F.3d at 785. Accordingly, I will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice, Judge Diamond says. Should Wilsterman again seek preliminary approval, he should cure the obvious deficiencies in his initial Motion. The Plaintiff Wilsterman brings state law claims against his former employer, Delphinus Engineering, Inc., for failing to prevent a widespread employee data breach. The Proposed Class is defined as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States who have been identified by the Defendant as potentially having their personally identifiable information (PII) compromised in the Data Breach experienced by Delphinus in October 2023, including all individuals who previously received notice that their PII may have been compromised in connection with the Data Breach." A Class Member potentially may claim: (1) up to $10,000 for documented, unreimbursed, out-of-pocket losses because of fraud or identity theft related to the breach; (2) a pro rata cash fund payment from the Settlement Fund, even if not claiming out-of-pocket losses; and (3) three years of credit monitoring, even if not claiming out-of-pocket losses or a pro rata cash fund payment. At final approval, Settlement Class Counsel will seek a Service Award of $5000 to Plaintiff, a Fee Award not to exceed $116,666.66, and up to $10,000 in costs. If approved, this would leave the Class with an average recovery of $70 per Member. Delphinus is a cyber-security company A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MtTgEr at no extra charge.[CC] DREW BOSTOCK: Bid to Stay Partial Summary Judgment Briefing Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON RODRIGUEZ VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DREW BOSTOCK, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwrigh entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to stay briefing of the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. If Defendants have a specific need for discovery, they should include an argument under Rule 56(d) in their response to the partial summary judgment motion. The Court grants the Defendants' alternative request to allow 21 days from entry of this Order for the Defendant to file an opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The Court construes this request as a motion for an extension of time to respond while the request for a stay was pending. Given the complexity and expedited nature of this case, the Court finds good cause for such an extension. The Defendants must now file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion by July 1, 2025, instead of June 23, 2025. The Court directs the clerk to re-note the pending summary judgment motion. The Court will contact the parties to schedule a combined, in-person oral argument on the partial summary judgment motion and the motion to dismiss after the briefing on both motions is complete. The Court finds that a stay is not appropriate. First, a stay of the partial summary judgment motion until adjudication of Defendants’ motion to dismiss does not promote the “orderly course of justice” where the motions present overlapping questions of law. Defendants’ motion to dismiss presents both jurisdictional and merits-based arguments. Unlike Defendants, Plaintiffs would suffer serious hardship in delaying adjudication of their partial summary judgment motion The Court ordered the following classes be certified: Bond Denial Class: "All noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection, (2) are not apprehended upon arrival, (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c), section 1225(b)(1), or section 1231 at the time the noncitizen is scheduled for or requests a bond hearing." Bond Appeal Class: "All detained noncitizens who have a pending appeal, or will file an appeal, of an immigration judge's bond hearing ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals." A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9ztm6P at no extra charge.[CC] DRINK LMNT: Faces Class Suit Over Electrolyte Drinks' False Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that LMNT electrolyte drink mix is falsely advertised as keto- and paleo-friendly and aligned with a "whole foods diet" given that the product contains the highly processed additive maltodextrin. According to the 26-page lawsuit, the advertising for LMNT is targeted at health-conscious consumers in search of dietary supplements with natural, minimally processed ingredients. Per the suit, the electrolyte drink mix is touted as containing "[e]verything you need and nothing you don't" and "no dodgy ingredients," and as aligned with ketogenic, paleolithic and whole-food diets. Despite these ad claims, however, each serving of LMNT contains between 300 and 450 milligrams of the additive maltodextrin, which is often used in processed foods as a sweetener or filler and is not compatible with paleo or keto diets or considered a whole food ingredient, the lawsuit says. "Taken together, Defendant's deceptive representations about LMNT are likely to mislead reasonable consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances," the filing claims. Additionally, the complaint points out that some recent research has linked maltodextrin consumption to intestinal inflammation, noting that such consumption is a particular risk for those with inflammatory diseases. The use of maltodextrin is not disclosed anywhere on the packaging for the LMNT drink mixes and is instead hidden behind the generic ingredient term "natural flavors," the suit claims. Per the case, the amount of maltodextrin in the product per serving exceeds those of two of the primarily advertised ingredients, potassium and magnesium, combined. The LMNT class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in New York who bought LMNT electrolyte drink mixes within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] DRINK LMNT: Hippe Must File Bid for Class Certification by Sept. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hippe v. Drink Lmnt Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00536 (E.D. Wisc., Filed April 14, 2025), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order directing the Plaintiff to move for class certification on or before Friday, September 5, 2025. If Plaintiff intends to engage in discovery for certification purposes, the Plaintiff shall move for leave to do so under Rule 26(d) by June 19, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).[CC] DROPBOX INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DROPBOX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04990 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.dropbox.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on June 9, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a subscription from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Dropbox, Inc. operates the website that offers cloud storage, file synchronization, personal cloud, and client software. [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: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal E. I. DUPONT: Drinking Water Contains Toxic Chemicals, Kennedy Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MELVA KENNEDY; ADAM SAGER; PEGGY RAINBOW; JAMES RATCLIFFE; MARYANN WHITE; CURTIS HANSON; and WILMA GILLESPIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY (n/k/a EIDP, Inc.); DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; and CORTEVA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04832-RMG (D.S.C., June 3, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated users of drinking water supplied by Public Water Systems (the "Proposed Class Members") arising from the widespread contamination of water caused by the Defendants containing per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), a family of chemical compounds that includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). According to the complaint, the Defendants' PFAS are manufactured compounds that are toxic, bioaccumulative and persistent in the environment, do not biodegrade, move readily through soil and groundwater, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. The Defendants developed, manufactured, formulated, distributed, sold, transported, stored, loaded, mixed, applied and/or used Defendants' PFAS with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment when used as directed, instructed and/or intended. Nevertheless, the Defendants elected to develop, manufacture, formulate, distribute, sell, transport, store, load, mix, apply and/or use Defendants' PFAS, thereby placing profits over human health and the environment, the suit asserts. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. provides technology based materials and solutions. The Company offers a diverse range of products, such as construction materials, adhesives, electronic, fabrics, fibers, home garden, medical devices, resins, printing, and consumer products. DuPont de Nemours serves energy, automotive, construction, government, military, safety, and packaging industries globally. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip D. Barber, Esq. RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A. 1410 Laurel Street (29201) Post Office Box 1090 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 252-4848 Facsimile: (803) 252-4810 Email: pdb@harpootlianlaw.com - and - Fletcher Trammell, Esq. TRAMMELL PC 3262 Westheimer, Suite 423 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (800) 405-1740 Facsimile: (800) 532-0992 Email: fletch@trammellpc.com - and - Robert W. Cowan, Esq. BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC 1360 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 Email: rcowan@bchlaw.com ELON MUSK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in McAferty Due April 1, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE MCAFERTY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. ELON MUSK & AMERICA PAC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01346-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman entered an agreed Scheduling Order as follows: 1. A report on alternative dispute resolution in compliance with Local Rule CV-88 shall be filed on or before July 12, 2025. 2. The parties asserting claims for relief shall submit a written offer of settlement to opposing parties on or before Oct. 15, 2025, and each opposing party shall respond, in writing, on or before Nov. 15, 2025. 3. Each party shall complete and file the attached "Notice Concerning Reference to United States Magistrate Judge" on or before July 12, 2025. 4. The parties shall file all motions to amend or supplement pleadings or to join additional parties on or before Aug. 3, 2025. 5. The parties shall complete Phase One discovery on Oct. 1, 2025. 6. After completion of Phase One discovery, Defendants may move for summary judgment on any or all live claims in the case no later than Nov. 4, 2025. 7. If the Defendants do not file a Phase One summary judgment motion, Phase Two discovery shall commence on Nov. 4, 2025. 8. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification on or before April 1, 2026. 9. The parties shall complete all discovery on or before Dec. 15, 2026. 10. All dispositive motions shall be filed on or before Feb. 1, 2027. 11. This case is set for jury trial commencing at 9:30 a.m. on July 6, 2027. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8KaIS5 at no extra charge.[CC] EPISOURCE LLC: Wharton Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHEN WHARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPISOURCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05330 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2025) is an action arising from Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Classes. The Plaintiff provided his private information indirectly to Defendant for risk adjustment services, software, and solutions, note the complaint. On June 6, 2025, the Defendant began sending letters entitled "NOTICE OF DATA BREACH" to Plaintiff and Class Members, advising them that on or around February 6, 2025, the Defendant discovered suspicious activity on its network. The Defendant determined that between January 27, 2025 and February 6, 2025, an unauthorized actor accessed and downloaded copies off its system, which contained the Private Information of Defendant's client's customers. As a result of the data breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of its client's customers, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, was stolen. Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seek to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to their impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of security measures to protect the Private Information that remains in Defendant's possession. Episource, LLC provides risk adjustment services, software, and solutions for health plans and provider groups.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com ETHEL M. CHOCOLATES: Senior Sues Over Website's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ETHEL M. CHOCOLATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04830 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 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 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.ethelm.com/en-us, 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. Ethel M. Chocolates, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 FEINGOLD LLC: Conspires to Steal Investor Funds, Siriani Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY SIRIANI; JOSEPH ANTONAKOS; GRACE CICCONE as Executrix of the Estate of Dr. Patrick Ciccone; KATE FAUNTLEROY; PERRY HARRIS; LEROY HOWE; DAVID KNOX; RICHARD KRAMER; DR. GREGORY LOVALLO; WILLIAM JOSEPH MORONEY as Trustee of the WJM Trust; DR. ROBERT SIMON; DR. VINCENT LANTERI; DR. MICHAEL J. WASSERMAN; and LORI SIRIANI on behalf of themselves individually and all other similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of the L3 CAPITAL INCOME FUND, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ANTHONY SIRIANI; GRACE CICCONE as Executrix of the Estate of Dr. Patrick Ciccone; PERRY HARRIS; LEROY HOWE; DAVID KNOX; RICHARD KRAMER; DR. GREGORY LOVALLO; WILLIAM JOSEPH MORONEY as Trustee of the WJM Trust; DR. VINCENT LANTERI; DR. MICHAEL J. WASSERMAN; and LORI SIRIANI on behalf of themselves individually and all other similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of the L3 CAPITAL HOTEL FUND, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ANTHONY SIRIANI; GRACE CICCONE as Executrix of the Estate of Dr. Patrick Ciccone; PERRY HARRIS; LEROY HOWE; WILLIAM JOSEPH MORONEY as Trustee of the WJM Trust; and LORI SIRIANI on behalf of themselves individually and all other similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of the L3 CAPITAL SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY FUND, LLC, a Delaware series limited liability company, Plaintiffs v. DAVID FEINGOLD; FEINGOLD, LLC; DAVICK CAPITAL, LLC; FEINGOLD MORGAN SANCHEZ, LLC; MCA VENTURE I LLC; E CONSULTING GLOBAL GROUP, LLC; MICHAEL DAZZO; DZ SQUARED, LLC; AMERITECH GLOBAL VENTURES, LLC; RICHARD CARDINALE; L3 CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; L3 CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC; RVCSI, LLC; JOSEPH BALDASSARRA; STEVEN BALDASSARRA; JDS PARTNERS; BROAD STREET, INC.; BROAD STREET GLOBAL HOLDINGS, LLC; BROAD STREET GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; BROAD STREET GLOBAL FUND, LLC; and BROAD STREET NEW YORK, INC., Defendants, and L3 CAPITAL INCOME FUND, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; L3 CAPITAL HOTEL FUND, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and L3 CAPITAL SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY FUND, LLC, a Delaware series limited liability company, Nominal Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-22608 (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraud, racketeering, negligence, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, conversion, and civil theft. This derivative class action seeks recovery of more than $150 million of investor funds and assets that the Defendants allegedly have stolen, hijacked, diverted, commingled, and/or wrongfully hidden through an ongoing conspiracy of fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair acts masterminded by defendant David Feingold. According to the complaint, Feingold orchestrated an excessively complicated investment structure and ongoing deceptive scheme to allow himself and his co-conspirators to improperly seize control over investor funds and assets, line their own pockets with tens-of-millions of dollars, and unjustly enrich themselves and entities they own and control. The Plaintiffs seek: (i) the return of misappropriated funds and assets; (ii) receipt of realized gains and profits to which the L3 Funds are entitled; (iii) a declaration that the L3 Funds are entitled to receipt of future gains and profits secured through the L3 Funds' investments on a going-forward basis; (iv) injunctive relief preventing the Defendants from interfering with the L3 Funds' rights, including their rights to manage and control their own affairs and to enjoy the fruits of their investments; (v) attorneys' fees where provided for by contract and statute; and (vi) when they are granted leave to do so, punitive damages against Defendants based on their outrageous conduct arising from their theft and diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars from innocent investors. Feingold, LLC is a limited liability company in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Davick Capital, LLC is a limited liability company in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Feingold Morgan Sanchez, LLC is a limited liability company in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. MCA Venture I LLC is a limited liability company in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. E Consulting Global Group, LLC is a limited liability company in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. DZ Squared, LLC is a limited liability company in Palmetto Bay, Florida. Ameritech Global Ventures, LLC is a limited liability company in Palmetto Bay, Florida. L3 Capital Management, LLC is a limited liability company in New York. L3 Capital Advisors, LLC is a limited liability company in New York. RVCSI, LLC is a limited liability company in New York. JDS Partners is a South Carolina partnership company. Broad Street, Inc. is a commercial real estate agency with its principal place of business in Greenville, South Carolina. Broad Street Global Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company in South Carolina. Broad Street Global Management, LLC is a limited liability company in South Carolina. Broad Street Global Fund, LLC is a limited liability company in South Carolina. Broad Street New York, Inc. is an affiliate of Broad Street, Inc. L3 Capital Income Fund, LLC is a private equity fund in New York. L3 Capital Hotel Fund, LLC is a private equity fund in New York. L3 Capital Special Opportunity Fund, LLC is a private equity fund in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew M. Greenidge, Esq. EPPERSON &GREENIDGE, P.A. 20 South Olive Street, Suite 304 Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (877) 445-9261 Email: service@eppersongreenidge.com FORD MOTOR: Bid for Class Cert. in Barnes Continued to Nov. 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET BARNES, ERIC SENKYRIK, MICHAEL HOGAN, SHARON JACKSON, SCOTT KAHLER, and MARK PANNULLO individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-06147-AB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue deadlines for class certification and discovery Event NEW Deadline Motion for Class Certification and Nov. 10, 2025 expert reports: Opposition to motion for class Jan. 5, 2026 certification and expert reports: Reply brief re: Motion for Class March 2, 2026 Certification: Close of Expert Discovery: April 13, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Initial): Oct. 3, 2025 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Jan. 8, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: April 13, 2026 Last Date to Hear Motions: May 21, 2026 Rule 56 Motion due 5 weeks before hearing Opposition due 2 weeks after Motion is filed Reply due 1 week after Opposition is filed Deadline to Complete Settlement May 21, 2026 Conference: Ford is an American automaker. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aeEeSf at no extra charge.[CC] FRANKYS CLEANING: Benitez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jimmy Santiago Vivanco Benitez, Marco Vivanco, and Vanessa Carol Domador Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Frankys Cleaning Service Inc, Franky's Auto Details Inc. d/b/a Franks Auto Detail, and John Frankis Solorzano, Case No. 2:25-cv-09986 (D.N.J., June 11, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), the New Jersey Administrative Code ("NJAC"), and the New Jersey Wage Theft Law ("NJWTL"), to recover from Defendants' unpaid minimum and overtime compensation. As a result, throughout their employment by Defendants, each of the Plaintiffs' effective hourly rates of pay were below the statutory New Jersey State minimum wage in effect at relevant times. The Defendants' failure to pay each of the Plaintiffs an amount at least equal to the New Jersey State minimum wage in effect during relevant time periods was willful and lacked a good faith basis, because Defendant Solorzano set Plaintiffs' work schedule and compensation and were aware of the hours Plaintiffs were working during their employment by Defendants. In addition, Defendants failed to pay each of the Plaintiffs their overtime compensation of one and one-half times (1.5x) their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the NJAC. The Defendants' failure to pay each of the Plaintiffs their overtime bonus for additional overtime hours they worked was willful and lacked a good faith basis, because Defendant Solorzano set each of the Plaintiffs' work schedule and rate of pay and was aware that Plaintiffs were working in excess of forty hours per week during their employment. Throughout Plaintiffs' employment by Defendants, Defendants willfully failed to provide each of the Plaintiffs with accurate pay stubs and/or wage statements in violation of the FLSA, NJWPL, NJWHL and NJWTL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. Frankys Cleaning Service Inc. is a domestic corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 563-9884 Email: michale@thesamuellawfirm.com - and - Reena Forst, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF REENA FORST 345 Union Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 Phone: (201) 568-5689 Fax: (201) 568-4479 Email: rforst@rflawfirm.com FRESH EXPRESS: Rosa Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BLANCA LIDIA DE LA ROSA, LETICIA SANDOVAL, LAURA CHAVEZ, MARIA PORCAYO, SARA PEREZ, and GUADALUPE PEREZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FRESH EXPRESS INC., LABOR PERSONNEL, LLC, WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT, INC., LUTTRELL HOLDINGS, LLC, QUALITY STAFFING, INC., and ALL ABOUT PERSONNEL, LLC, Case No. 2025CH04413, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 9, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06425 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act. Fresh Express Inc. is a supplier of packaged salads and fresh fruits, doing business in Illinois. Labor Personnel, LLC is an employment agency in Elgin, Illinois. Workforce Management, Inc. is a staffing firm in Illinois. Luttrell Holdings, LLC is a staffing firm in Illinois. Quality Staffing, Inc. is a staffing firm in Illinois. All About Personnel, LLC is a staffing firm in Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew J. Gagnon, Esq. Carissa A. Townsend, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 558-1220 Email: matthew.gagnon@ogletree.com carissa.townsend@ogletree.com GARRISON INVESTMENT: Messer Appeals Court Order to 4th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- TONY A. MESSER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Tony A. Messer, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Garrison Investment Group, LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00037-JPJ-PMS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The appellate case is entitled Tony Messer v. Garrison Investment Group, LP, Case No. 25-1657, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants TONY A. MESSER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mary Lynn Tate, Esq. TATE LAW PC 16006 Porterfield Highway Abingdon, VA 24210 Defendants-Appellees GARRISON INVESTMENT GROUP, LP, et al. are represented by: Mark Hunter Churchill, Esq. Morgan Ryan Pankow, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 1650 Tysons Boulevard Tysons, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 720-8094 (703) 720-8083 GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Inadequate Notice of Recalled Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ratchet+Wrench reports that General Motors is facing a class action lawsuit over its solution to a recall issued earlier this year allegedly not working. GM Authority recently shared the case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. It centers on a recall for the 6.2L V8 L87 gasoline engine, found in the 2019–2024 GMC Sierra 1500, 2019–2024 Chevy Silverado 1500, and several other 2021–2024 GM models. When the recall was issued this past April, GM instructed dealers to replace or repair the engine if the diagnostic trouble code P0016 is detected. Otherwise, recalled vehicles would be given an oil change with a thicker-grade oil and different oil fill cap. However, according to plaintiffs, most drivers are receiving just the oil change -- and those who are having engine replacements done on their recalled vehicles have claimed they're being swapped with identical power units containing the same defective parts. In addition, the suit accuses GM of not adequately notifying impacted owners of recalled vehicles, with many claiming they failed to be made aware by GM. [GN] GLOBAL TEL: Bid for Class Certification in Parkell Tossed as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Donald Parkell, et al., v. Global Tel Link, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00432-GBW (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Williams entered an order as follows: 1. The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S. Code Section 1915 and 1915A, because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and amendment is futile. 2. The Plaintiff's motion for service, class certification, and counsel are denied as moot; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Global Tel is a private equity owned telecommunications company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Njc7l at no extra charge.[CC] GMET COMMUNICATOINS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graham Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GMET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00591-ALM (E.D. Tex., June 3, 2025) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Graham was employed by the Defendant as a sales advocate. GMET Communications, LLC specializes in providing a wide range of mobile communication solutions, including prepaid wireless plans, smartphones, accessories, and data services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 8201 Mission Road, Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66206 Tel: (913) 766-5585 Fax: (816) 875-5069 Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com GOOGLE INC: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended by 60 Days ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 1:12-md-02358-JDW (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered an order that all deadlines in the case are extended 60 days to permit the Plaintiffs to take discovery of the log data that they need to address class certification. No further extensions will be granted. Google is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QxHRoz at no extra charge.[CC] GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fischer Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH FISCHER, MICHAEL O'SULLIVAN, JOHN MOESER, LOUIS PIA, THOMAS BARDEN, CONSTANCE MANGAN, and CHARISE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-02848-SJB-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order: (1) certifying a Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), (2) designating Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and (3) appointing Outten & Golden LLP and Kessler Matura P.C. as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Government is an American vehicle insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IaNxf2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Scimone, Esq. Sabine Jean, Esq. Jarron D. McAllister, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com sjean@outtengolden.com jmcallister@outtengolden.com - and - Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: tkesler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com GUAM: Xiong Appeals Court Order in Class Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ NOU XIONG, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Nou Xiong, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALAN P. BORJA, Colonel, in his official capacity as Warden of the Guam Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-00026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam. The case type is stated as Original Proceeding, Petition, Private. The appellate case is entitled Xiong, et al. v. Borja, et al., Case No. 25-3655, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners NOU XIONG, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua Jonathan Schroeder, Esq. SCHROEDER LAW P.O. Box 82 Los Angeles, CA 90078 Defendants-Respondents ALAN P. BORJA, Colonel, in his official capacity as Warden of the Guam Department of Corrections, et al. are represented by: Jessica Friday Cruz, Esq. OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY 108 Hernan Cortez Avenue Hagatna, GU 96910 HEALTH CARE: Rutherford's Bid for Class Certification OK'd in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, and JOHNNY RUTHERFORD on behalf of those similarly situated, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order 1. Rutherford's motion for class certification is granted in part. 2. The class will be defined as follows: "All policyholders and plan members covered under non-ERISA health plans in Montana that are administered by HCSC and subject to Montana claim handling law, who have had claims denied by HCSC within the applicable statute of limitations period, pursuant to the Not Medically Necessary Standard Operating Procedure on grounds that the medical procedure being billed was "not medically necessary." 3. There will be a subclass defined as follows: "Policyholders whose claims were denied by HCSC as a third- party administrator." 4. HCSC's motion to stay class certification is denied. The Court finds that it lacks sufficient information to define a class under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b)(3). The class may be appropriately certified under (b)(1) and (b)(2). Whether questions of law and fact of class members predominate or whether class action would be superior to other methods remains undecided. The Court will allow class discovery to take place. The Court reserves the right to make findings and alter this order. Rutherford filed a complaint in Montana state court against HCSC and MUS for himself and others similarly situated on December 15, 2023. (Doc. 4.) HCSC removed the action to Montana federal court on November 14, 2024. Health Care is a member-owned health insurance company in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DAfU8Y at no extra charge.[CC] HEXO CORP: Appeals Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Francois-David Pare, Dominic Dupoy (CA) & Caroline Larouche of Norton Rose Fulbright report that on April 16, 2025, the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Martin Dionne against HEXO Corp. and Sebastien St-Louis, its former Chief Executive Officer, affirming the Superior Court's decision to deny authorization for a securities class action. The appeal was heard by Justices Genevieve Marcotte, Patrick Healy and Frederic Bachand, with Justice Marcotte authoring the majority opinion and Justice Bachand providing a partial dissent. The case in appeal centered on two main alleged misrepresentations: -- regarding a five-year supply agreement between HEXO and the SQDC, which included a take-or-pay clause for 20,000 kg of cannabis in the first year; and -- about the licensing status of Newstrike Brands Ltd.'s Block B facility, acquired by HEXO, which was later found to be inadequately licensed. Superior Court Decision The Superior Court, presided by Justice Silvana Conte, denied the authorization for a class action, finding no reasonable possibility of success for the claims under the Securities Act and the Civil Code of Quebec. The court concluded that HEXO's statements about the SQDC agreement did not amount to a revenue guarantee and that the Block B licensing issue was not material to HEXO's business operations and to investors. Justice Conte emphasized that the take-or-pay clause in the SQDC agreement was accurately described by HEXO and did not mislead investors into believing that revenue was guaranteed. Furthermore, the court noted that the cannabis market was new and volatile, and reasonable investors would understand that contractual commitments might not always result in actual revenue. Court of Appeal Analysis The Court of Appeal, upheld the Superior Court's decision. The court found no error in the lower court's application of the law or its assessment of the evidence. The court emphasized that the alleged impugned statements about the SQDC agreement were accurate descriptions of the contract terms and did not guarantee revenue. Additionally, the court agreed that the Block B licensing issue was immaterial, given the facility's limited impact on HEXO's overall operations and the fact that the market was already aware of the suspension of operations at the Niagara facility. Justice Marcotte highlighted that the appellant's expert evidence did not demonstrate that the licensing deficiency had a significant effect on HEXO's stock price, and the broader context of the company's operations and market conditions supported the conclusion that the issue was not material. Dissenting Opinion Justice Bachand partially dissented, holding that the first instance judge made palpable and overriding errors in dismissing the appellant's secondary market claim related to the Newstrike Block B licensing deficiency. Justice Bachand was of the view that the expert report provided credible evidence linking the 10.2% decrease in HEXO's share price to the disclosure of the licensing issue, warranting further consideration at trial. Justice Bachand emphasized that the materiality of the licensing deficiency should be assessed in light of the significant market reaction and that the appellant had presented a plausible analysis supported by credible evidence. He held that the case should proceed to trial to fully explore the implications of the licensing issue on investor decisions and HEXO's stock price. Conclusion The Court of Appeal's decision underscores the importance of contextual evidence and common sense in assessing materiality in securities litigation. The court's ruling affirms that not all contractual terms or operational issues rise to the level of material misrepresentations under the Securities Act or the Civil Code of Quebec. The decision also highlights the rigorous scrutiny applied by courts in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence at the authorization stage in the context of securities class actions, ensuring that only claims with a reasonable possibility of success proceed to trial. This approach aims to balance the protection of investors with the need to prevent unmeritorious litigation that could burden companies and the judicial system. Takeaways -- While the certification process in civil class actions amounts too often to a rubber-stamping exercise, the leave application under the Securities Act warrants a rigorous analysis by the court. With proper evidence and strong opposition, defendants can succeed against unmeritorious claims, thus avoiding the nuisance and costs associated with an action on the merits. -- The court will closely scrutinize the context and content of alleged misrepresentations in securities litigation, considering both the specific statements of the claim and the broader market conditions. -- Expert evidence on materiality must be sufficiently linked to the specific issues at hand to support claims of material misrepresentation, demonstrating a clear connection between the alleged misrepresentation and its effect on investor decisions. Note that Norton Rose Fulbright was successful in having discontinued or dismissed five different class actions dealing mainly with the same issues, in the US (United States District Court, Southern District of New York and the Supreme Court of the State of New York), Ontario and Quebec. [GN] HUMBLE BUNDLE: Filing for Class Certification Due March 20, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wray, v. Humble Bundle, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01592-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order: 1. Trial Date: Nov. 1, 2027 2. Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 30, 2027 3. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Nov. 20, 2026 4. Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Aug. 28, 2026 5. Motion For Class Certification: March 20, 2026 Opposition by: April. 17, 2026 Reply by: May 8, 2026 Hearing: June 23, 2026 Humble sells games, books, software, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e7ZjQE at no extra charge.[CC] IL BACCO RISTORANTE: Faces Tomin Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHAN TOMIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IL BACCO RISTORANTE INC. (D/B/A IL BACCO), JOSEPH OPPEDISANO, and TINA OPPEDISANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03291 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs., including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; failure to provide one additional hour's pay at the basic minimum wage rate before allowances for each day Plaintiff Tomin's spread of hours exceeded 10; failure to provide a written wage notice; failure to furnish accurate wage statement; failure to pay on a regular weekly basis; and violation of the tip withholding provisions. Plaintiff Tomin was employed by Defendants as a busser at Il Bacco from approximately August 2021 until about April 2024. The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located in Little Neck, New York under the name "Il Bacco."[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 E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com ISOMEDIX OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Whitaker Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MISTY A. WHITAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISOMEDIX OPERATIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01238 (N.D. Ohio, June 12, 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 and those similarly situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and were paid some overtime for those hours, but at a rate that did not include Defendant's bonuses as required by the FLSA, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Waukegan, Illinois and was employed by Isomedix as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately March 2022 through October 1, 2024. Isomedix Operations Inc. is a subsidiary of STERIS Company, a global provider of products and services that support patient care with an emphasis on infection prevention.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Meghan Higday, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com mh@melmedlaw.com KIM KOVOL: Mary Seeks to Amend Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mary B., et al., v. Kim Kovol, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00129-SLG (D. Alaska), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting request that the Court allow the amendment of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel and appoint Kevin Homiak and Galen Bellamy of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP as coclass counsel, joining A Better Childhood, Perkins Coie LLP, and Disability Law Center of Alaska. The addition of Mr. Homiak and Mr. Bellamy as co-class counsel more than satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(g)(1). Moreover, given the withdrawal of the Northern Justice Project, the addition of Mr. Homiak and Mr. Bellamy ensures that Plaintiffs’ legal counsel maintains the same number of attorneys and same amount of attorney resources for trial. Together with existing proposed class counsel, Mr. Homiak and Mr. Bellamy will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class On July 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their amended class action complaint against the Defendants, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violations of substantive due process, the right to familial association, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, and the Indian Child Welfare Act; and the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. On Nov. 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a general class of: "All children for whom OCS has or will have legal responsibility and who are or will be in the legal and physical custody of OCS, and an Americans with Disabilities Act Subclass of children who are or will be in foster care and experience physical, cognitive, and psychiatric disabilities." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wuxr65 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq. Julia K. Tebor, Esq. Anastasia Benedetto, Esq. David Baloche, Esq. A BETTER CHILDHOOD 355 Lexington Avenue, Floor 16 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 795-4456 Facsimile: (212) 692-0415 E-mail: mlowry@abetterchildhood.org jtebor@abetterchildhood.org abenedetto@abetterchildhood.org dbaloche@abetterchildhood.org - and - Elena M. Romerdahl, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1029 West Third Avenue, Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 279-8561 Facsimile: (907) 276-3108 E-mail: eromerdahl@perkinscoie.com - and - Mark Regan, Esq. DISABILITY LAW CENTER OF ALASKA 3330 Arctic Blvd., Suite 103 Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone: (907) 565-1002 Facsimile: (907) 565-1000 E-mail: mregan@dlcak.org KINGS 7 DELI: Ramirez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Deli Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- ISIDRO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KINGS 7 DELI & GROCERY INC. (d/b/a KINGS 7 DELI), MOHAMED AL-SAADI, and ABDU DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03219 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Mr. Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as a general deli worker at Kings 7 Deli, located at 268 Kings Highway, Brooklyn, New York. Kings 7 Deli & Grocery Inc., doing business as Kings 7 Deli, is a restaurant owner and operator, located in Brooklyn, 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 KIPLING APPAREL: Agrees to Settle False Discount Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Kipling agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it advertised false discounts at its California outlet stores. The Kipling settlement benefits individuals who purchased one or more products at Kipling's California outlet stores between Dec. 8, 2019, and May 29, 2025, who have not received a refund or credit. According to a Kipling false discounts class action lawsuit, the company advertised false sales at its California outlet store locations in violation of California law. Plaintiffs in the case say that Kipling advertised "discounts" from a "reference price" that was never actually used to sell products. Kipling is an apparel company that sells bags, backpacks and other accessories in outlet locations across the country, including in California. Kipling has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Kipling settlement, class members can receive a $10 voucher to be used at Kipling's California outlet stores. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 25, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Kipling false discounts settlement is scheduled for Oct. 3, 2025. Class members who wish to receive a settlement voucher must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 25, 2025. Class members who received a direct email notice of the settlement will automatically receive a $10 voucher if they do not exclude themselves from the settlement. Class members who did not receive a direct email notice will need to submit a claim form to receive a voucher. Who's Eligible Consumers who made a purchase from Kipling's California outlet stores between Dec. 8, 2019, and May 29, 2025. Potential Award $10 voucher Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 09/25/2025 Case Name Calcagno v. Kipling Apparel Corp., Case No. 25CU000125, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego Final Hearing 10/03/2025 Settlement Website KiplingSettlement.com Claims Administrator Calcagno v. Kipling Settlement c/o Simpluris PO Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@kiplingsettlement.com (888) 370-1283 Class Counsel Todd D. Carpenter Scott G. Braden LYNCH CARPENTER LLP Defense Counsel Michael D. Roth Brittany Litzinger KING AND SPALDING LLP [GN] LEMONADE INC: Faces Rich Suit Over Disclosure of Customers' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE LINWOOD RICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEMONADE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04851 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and the New York General Business Law, negligence, declaratory and injunctive relief, and negligence per se. The case arises from the Defendant's use and disclosure of the personal information (PI) of its customers, including the Plaintiff, by knowingly and intentionally designing and implementing the auto-population feature on its Quote Platform, an online quoting platform through which prospective customers can apply for insurance coverage and receive a quote from Defendant online. According to the complaint, the Defendant added the auto-population feature to gain a competitive advantage in its sales process. The Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's and Class members' consent to disclose such PI to any other person, as required by applicable law and industry standards. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. Lemonade, Inc. is a provider of private passenger automobile insurance policies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Vaughan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1001 G Street, NW Fourth Floor, Suite 400 East Washington DC 20001 Telephone: (215) 875-4602 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: zvaughan@bm.net - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: emdrake@bm.net - and - Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: mdesanto@bm.net LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAVOYCE LIVINGSTON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03228-SDG (N.D. Ga., June 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) 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: M. Brandon Smith, Esq. CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH LLC Atlanta, GA 30319 Telephone: (404) 419-9500 Email: bsmith@cssfirm.com - and - Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Maury Goldstein, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Facsimile: (850) 916-7449 Email: baylstock@awkolaw.com Mgoldstein@awkolaw.com MICHAELS MANAGEMENT: Must Respond to SAC by July 11 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE DAMARE, et al., and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. MICHAELS MANAGEMENT AFFORDABLE, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00554-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Abizer Zanzi entered an order granting in part the Defendant's motion for more definite statement. The Plaintiffs are ordered to file a second amended complaint which: (1) removes "The LaSalle Apartments" as a Defendant, (2) includes accurate statements regarding the domiciled status of the remaining parties based on the individual Plaintiffs' states of residency at the time the lawsuit was filed and Defendant Michaels Management Affordable LLC's status as a limited liability company and not a corporation, and (3) includes good faith allegations as to how the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint on or before June 25, 2025. The Defendant Michaels Management Affordable LLC is ordered to respond the second amended complaint by July 11, 2025. The Court further lifts the stay as to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and orders the Defendant Michaels Management Affordable LLC to respond to the motion for class certification on or before July 25, 2025. The putative class action lawsuit filed by the Plaintiffs who are residents of an apartment complex and claim that their parking rights were unlawfully taken away from them. Defendant Michaels Management Affordable LLC has filed a Motion for More Definite Statement of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs allege that they each entered into a lease at an apartment complex in South Bend, Indiana. As part of the leases, each tenant had parking rights at the apartment complex. But they say the property manager took away those parking rights and they suffered harm as a result. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SSMRCr at no extra charge.[CC] MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Lynch Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lynch, et al., v. Multnomah County, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01502 (D. Or. Filed Oct. 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered an order adopting the case scheduling outlined by the parties in the Joint Statement Regarding Case Schedule as follows: The deadline file motions to compel fact discovery is September 8, 2025. The deadline to amend pleadings or join parties is September 29, 2025. Fact discovery is to be completed by September 29, 2025. Initial expert disclosures are due by October 30, 2025; rebuttal expert disclosures are due by December 1, 2025. The deadline to file a class certification motion is October 30, 2025; the deadline to respond is December 1, 2025, and any reply in support of the class certification motion is due December 30, 2025. The last date to file any motion to compel expert discovery is December 8, 2025, and responses to such motions are due no later than 14 calendar days after the initiating motion is filed; no replies are permitted for discovery motions. Expert discovery is to be completed by December 22, 2025. Joint Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts is due on January 5, 2026. Joint ADR Report and any dispositive motions are due no later than February 16, 2026. The Parties are ordered to provide a jointly proposed pretrial schedule within 14 days of this Court's ruling on any dispositive motions, if appropriate. Pretrial Order and Verdict Form, if appropriate, are due within 14 days of the Court's order on any dispositive motions. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] NORDVPN SA: Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewals ----------------------------------------------------------------- George Phillips of tom's guide reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against NordVPN, with the provider's practices around automatic subscription renewals brought into question. NordVPN is not the only provider to adopt these tactics -- many of the best VPNs do, and indeed it's part and parcel of most subscription service industries -- but the lawsuit claims that NordVPN's are "illegal" and "deceptive". The claim names Nordvpn S.A, Tefincom SA, and Nordsec B.V. as the defendants, and Lanzy Kandeh as the plaintiff. It was first filed on March 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with violations of state consumer laws alleged. Auto-renewing subscriptions can be divisive. Many of NordVPN's negative Trustpilot reviews are because of auto-renewals and some users are advising others to "be very careful" when signing up. Subscriptions are difficult to cancel It is alleged that Nord Security doesn't adequately warn customers that their subscriptions will auto-renew. The lawsuit describes this practice as a "negative option" feature. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) says this is a "condition under which a seller may interpret a consumer's silence, failure to take an affirmative action to reject a product or service, or failure to cancel an agreement as acceptance or continued acceptance of the offer." Put simply, unless you cancel your NordVPN subscription, the provider will assume you want it to continue and automatically renew your subscription -- at an inflated price. The lawsuit claims these are "deceptive and unlawful subscription practices" and argues they are "designed to entrap consumers". Lanzy Kandeh claims he didn't know his NordVPN subscription would renew automatically. He said he was "charged $119.08 for another year of that subscription that he did not want". According to the claim, Nord Security is said to mislead users in the following six ways: -- The subscription process, and what the customer is signing up for, isn't clearly explained. -- The post-purchase receipt doesn't include information on auto-renewal and how to cancel. -- Renewal charges are taken 14 days before the subscription ends -- it's argued this is "well before any reasonable consumer would expect such a subscription to renew". -- Canceling a subscription is "exceedingly difficult". -- Sufficient notice of subscription renewal is not provided. -- "Material changes" to renewal terms are not clearly disclosed. As well as himself, Kandeh is looking to represent any New Yorker affected by auto-renewals and is seeking damages of $50 million. Kandeh reported that he subscribed to a two-year NordVPN plan in December 2023 and then a one-year subscription to Incogni data removal service -- which is owned by Nord Security. He said that Nord Security "deceived" him into believing the Incogni subscription would cease after one year. But the plan auto-renewed and Kandeh said he couldn't work out how to cancel his NordVPN and Incogni subscriptions. A refund was obtained via PayPal, but Kandeh said he "did not authorize or want his Nord Subscriptions to renew". Previous cases A similar case was brought against NordVPN in 2024 and was filed in a Colorado federal court. Again, "deceptive" auto-renewal tactics were the subject of the lawsuit. The law firm Wittels McInturff Palikovic has previously attempted to bring similar cases against ExpressVPN, Private Internet Access (PIA), and Proton VPN. However, no lawsuits concerning auto-renewing subscriptions were ever filed against these providers. This could be seen as an example of "lawsuit fishing," where firms seek evidence that might not actually be there. VPN subscriptions from these providers do auto-renew at a higher rate but there is no evidence to suggest this is deceptive. Tom's Guide reached out to NordVPN regarding the lawsuit. A NordVPN spokesperson said: "Nord Security continuously strives to provide an excellent customer experience and complies with legal requirements." "We have responded to the lawsuits but cannot comment on the specific allegations at this time, other than to state that we are and always have been very clear about the recurring nature of our services."[GN] OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Dalton Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02392 (D. Minn., June 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 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.ollies.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 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. Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc., doing business as Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc., is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com PAROLE COMMISSION: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOWAN HAGANS, v. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01671-ACR (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending their deadline to respond to Plaintiff Antowan Hagans' motion to certify class to July 31, 2025, i.e., the date that their response to the complaint is due. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), the undersigned has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, who consents to the relief requested. A proposed order is attached. Good cause to grant the requested extension exists. The undersigned was assigned this case only two days ago, is still familiarizing himself with the legal and factual issues that this case raises, and currently is on vacation in Italy, from which he will not return to the United States for another week. Additionally, the requested extension of time will not unfairly prejudice Plaintiff, as his consent to the requested extension indicates. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1VKnq5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Bradley G. Silverman, Esq. US DOJ 601 D Street NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-2575 E-mail: bradley.silverman@usdoj.gov PINK JEEP: Collective Decertification Bid in Slepian Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Geoffrey H Slepian, v. Pink Jeep Tours LLC, Pink Adventure Holdings LLC, and Herschend Adventure Holdings LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-08105-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Krissa Lanham entered an order denying the motion for decertification of collective. The Court further entered an order that Slepian's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims for uncompensated overtime for time spent preparing jeeps before and after tours and time giving tours will not proceed on a collective basis. The Plaintiff worked as a guide for defendants Pink Jeep Tour Arizona, LLC and Herschend Adventure Holdings LLC businesses that offer guided jeep tours in Arizona. Slepian brought a complaint on behalf of himself and similarly-situated guides, claiming Pink Jeep failed to pay him minimum wage and overtime wages for time he spent waiting to be assigned to tours, preparing his jeep before and after tours, and conducting tours in violation of FLSA). Slepian also alleged Pink Jeep failed to properly keep employment records. After the parties agreed to conditionally certify a collective of all current and former guides employed by Pink Jeep during a specified date range, Pink Jeep moved to decertify the collective. Because the guides are similarly-situated, Pink Jeep's motion is denied. Pink Jeep "provide[s] scenic, educational, and hopefully fun" tours in Tusayan, near the Grand Canyon, and Sedona. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s3A83y at no extra charge.[CC] PUIG NORTH: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUIG NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04937 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.drsturm.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 23, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Hyaluronic Serum from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Puig North America, Inc. operates the website that offers skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal REPUBLIC SERVICES: Red Barn Sues Over Unlawful Rate Increases ------------------------------------------------------------- RED BARN CONSULTING, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; REPUBLIC SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC DBA YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02953 (E.D. Pa., June 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged widespread and systematic practice of overcharging their customers through two separate, but related coordinated schemes: implementing unlawful rate increases and charging unlawful, deceptive and unfair fuel recovery fees and environmental recovery fees. According to the complaint, in breach of their agreement provision, and of state statutory and common law, the Defendants increased contract rates for the Plaintiff and putative class members without regard to increases in costs or consumer price index (CPI), and by far more than allowed under the contract. In addition to assessing rate increases on their customers, the Defendants have also increased prices by imposing fuel or environmental fees. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful practice, the Plaintiff and the Class are harmed. Red Barn Consulting, Inc. is a consulting firm in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Republic Services, Inc. is a waste disposal company based in Phoenix, Arizona. Republic Services of Pennsylvania, LLC, doing business as York Waste Disposal, is a waste disposal company based in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Regina D. Poserina, Esq. KREINDLER & ASSOCIATES 2230 Rte. 70 W, Ste. 2 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (609) 560-7422 Email: rposerina@blowthewhistle.com - and - Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq. Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq. Graham Cotton, Esq. PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC 1919 Cahaba Road Birmingham, AL 35223 Telephone: (205) 208-9588 Email: nick@pricearmstrong.com oscar@pricearmstrong.com graham@pricearmstrong.com ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action lawsuit styled Ho v. Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:25-cv-10049 (D. N.J.) has been filed and seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Rocket Pharmaceuticals securities between February 27, 2025 and May 26, 2025. The lawsuit comes after investors saw the price of their shares in Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:RCKT) crash over 60% on May 27, 2025 as a result of the company's announcement that the FDA put a clinical hold on its Phase 2 pivotal trial for RP-A501, an experimental therapy intended to treat patients with a rare gene disorder called Danon disease. Hagens Berman urges Rocket Pharmaceuticals investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now. The firm also encourages persons with knowledge who may be able to assist in the investigation to contact its attorneys. Class Period: Feb. 27, 2025 - May 26, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Aug. 11, 2025 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/rckt Contact the Firm Now: RCKT@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 The Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (RCKT) Securities Class Action: The litigation focuses on the propriety of Rocket Pharmaceutical's disclosures about the trial protocol being implemented in the RP-A501 Phase 2 trial. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Rocket Pharmaceuticals made materially false and misleading statements while failing to disclose to investors: (1) the true state of RP-A501's safety and clinical trial protocol; (2) that the company knew Serious Adverse Events ("SAEs"), including patient's deaths, were at risk; and (3) that the company amended the trials protocol to introduce a novel immunomodulatory agent to the pretreatment regimen. Investors learned the truth on May 27, 2025, when the company revealed that the FDA put a clinical hold on its Phase 2 study after a patient suffered a SAE and ultimately died. During the May 27, 2025 update call, in response to analysts' questions, management revealed that the company amended the trial protocol "several months ago[.]" The analysts were seemingly unaware of the company's amendments before this update call. This news drove the price of Rocket Pharmaceutical's shares crashing $3.94 (-62%) the same day. "We're investigating claims that Rocket Pharmaceuticals may have misled investors about its Phase 2 protocol and whether it secretly amended it without first notifying the FDA and investors," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you'd like more information and answers to frequently asked questions about the Rocket Pharmaceuticals case and our investigation, read more » Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Rocket Pharmaceuticals should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email RCKT@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN] SELECT REHABILITATION: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by August 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, JUSTIN LEMBKE, and SCOTT HARDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Schlesinger entered an order that: 1. Select's "unopposed time-sensitive motion for extension of Deadline to depose declarants and incorporated memorandum of Law" is granted. 2. Select's deadline to depose the declarants is extended to July 30, 2025. 3. Select must file its opposition to class certification by Aug. 29, 2025. 4. The Plaintiffs will file a reply in support of class certification within 14 days after Select files its opposition. Select provides comprehensive therapy services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ccRzUy at no extra charge.[CC] SHADE STORE: Class Cert Hearing in Crowder Continued to Sept. 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON CROWDER, JOEL LUMIAN, ROBERT SMITH, AMANDA GOLDWASSER, and MARK ELKINS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02331-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nathanael Cousins entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification and opposition to motion to exclude shall be filed by June 17, 2025. 2. The Defendant's reply in support of its motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts shall be filed by Aug. 20, 2025. 3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, hearing on the Defendant's motion to exclude, and case management conference shall be continued to Sept. 10, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. Shade Store sells custom window treatments such as shades, drapes, and blinds. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gm2CVG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SHADE STORE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Briefing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD and KATHERINE ADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for the Parties' class certification briefing by 30 days as follows: Case Event Deadline Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion July 24, 2025 for class certification and opposition to motions to exclude: Defendant's Reply in support of motions Aug. 28, 2025 to exclude: On March 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On April 30, 2025, the Defendant filed its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and its motions to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts. The Shade Store sells custom window treatments such as shades, drapes, and blinds. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n6Jlor at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com - and - Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON & NOEL, PLLC 20 Sixth Ave. NE Issaquah WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7786 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com The Defendant is represented by: Maren R. Norton, Esq. James M. Shore, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com jim.shore@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com - and - Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SHADE STORE: Parties Seek Sept. 10 Class Cert Hearing ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON CROWDER, JOEL LUMIAN, ROBERT SMITH, AMANDA GOLDWASSER, and MARK ELKINS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02331-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting request as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification and opposition to motion to exclude shall be filed by July 17, 2025. 2. The Defendant's reply in support of its motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts shall be filed by Aug. 20, 2025. 3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, hearing on the Defendant's motion to exclude, and case management conference shall be continued to Sept. 10, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The Shade Store sells custom window treatments such as shades, drapes, and blinds. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0e2ES0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com martin@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com SHIELD PROTECTIVE: Bid for Conditional Certification Due Sept. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY NEUGEBAUER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SHIELD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LLC, and CHRISTOPHER SCHMALING, Case No. 2:25-cv-00553-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall make their initial disclosures to the opposing party in accordance Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) no later than July 11, 2025. 2. The parties may join other parties and amend the pleadings without leave of court no later than July 25, 2025. 3. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) collective action shall be filed on or before Sept. 19, 2025. 4. The deadline for the plaintiff to file an amended Rule 23 motion for class certification is March 27, 2026. 5. The Defendants' motion for decertification of the 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) certified collective action shall be filed on or before March 27, 2026. 6. All discovery is to be completed by May 29, 2026. 7. All motions for summary judgment together with the moving party's principal materials in support of the motion are to be filed in accordance with Civil L.R. 56 no later than June 26, 2026. 8. The court will schedule a telephonic scheduling conference to discuss further scheduling if no summary judgment motions are filed or if resolution of the summary judgment motions does not dispose of the case in its entirety. 9. Any request for court action must be filed as a motion. A joint request should be filed as a joint motion. Aside from a stipulation to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the court will not take any action on stipulations. Shield provides corporate and residential security services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ScQeIm at no extra charge.[CC] SMG FOOD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ordono Suit Due 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 Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order granting the joint stipulation to extend class certification deadlines: The Parties' Joint Stipulation is approved and adopted. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification is now Sept. 8, 2025. The Defendant's deadline to oppose is Oct. 8, 2025. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply to the Defendant's opposition is now Oct. 29, 2025. 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 Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IllEq6 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 STAGE HOUSE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Claude Says ------------------------------------------------------------- WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAGE HOUSE TAVERN 3, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-07965 (D.N.J., June 6, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.stagehousetavern.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and visually impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on the website. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Stage House Tavern 3, LLC operates the website and refers to the third location of the Stage House Tavern restaurant, which is located in Mountainside, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SUAREZ CONSTRUCTION: Tinajero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- ARMANDO TINAJERO, Plaintiff v. SUAREZ CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC and FIDEL SUAREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-22654 (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2025) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida common law and Florida Statutes. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a construction worker from January 2022 doing an average of 65 hours of work per week. However, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff any overtime wages over the course of his employment. Additionally, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff for approximately $22,000.00 worth of wages, says the suit. Suarez Construction Group, LLC is a contracting services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julisse Jimenez, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com SUMMIT PLASTIC: Faces Turner Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRAE TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUMMIT PLASTIC COMPANY d/b/a CREO Greenhouse, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01241 (N.D. Ohio, June 12, 2025) arises from the Defendant's systematic failure to include all remuneration in their overtime computations in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout the relevant time period, the Defendant maintained a corporate policy and practice of willfully refusing to pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees the legally required amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the FLSA, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for SPC as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately 2007 until August 28, 2024. Summit Plastic Company manufactures and sells printed plastic containers for the greenhouse industry. In approximately June-August 2024, the Company was rebranded as CREO Greenhouse.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: pkennedy@sommerspc.com SUNO INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Copyrighted Songs ----------------------------------------------------------- Music Business Worldwide reports that Suno and Udio have been slapped with another round of copyright litigation, this time by country musician Tony Justice, who filed class-action lawsuits against both controversial AI music generators. The complaints allege Suno and Udio used Justice's recordings and works from "thousands of class members" without authorization to train their AI models. Justice and his label, 5th Wheel Records, filed the lawsuit against Sunoin Massachusetts, and the case against Udio in New York. The 23- and 24-page lawsuits argue that while major labels pursue their own infringement cases, independent artists "whose rights have been trampled the most" remain excluded from "the table, unrepresented, and without a meaningful remedy." In June last year, the major music companies sued the AI startups in the US for allegedly training their systems using the companies' recordings without permission -- an accusation they pretty much admitted to in court filings last August. Most recently, Justice's complaint states: "Rather than simply license these copyrighted songs like every other tech-based business does, Suno/Udio elected to simply steal the songs and generate AI-soundalike music at virtually no cost to Suno/Udio." Justice's legal team includes Krystle Delgado, an attorney who also performs as a musician. As with the lawsuits filed by the three majors, the new cases challenge the AI companies' argument that training models on copyrighted material constitutes fair use under copyright law. ustice's lawsuits contest this position, citing recent guidance from the US Copyright Office. It cited the office's May 2025 report: Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 3: Generative AI Training, which according to the lawsuit, "emphasized that the fair use doctrine does not excuse unauthorized training on expressive works (e.g., music) particularly when those works are used to generate substitutional outputs that may replace the originals in the relevant marketplace." "Suno/Udio training its AI model on the copyrighted songs of independent artists, Plaintiffs and Class Members, without authorization, to then create competing music in the exact same marketplace, is unlikely fair use, and therefore, is prima facie copyright infringement." The Copyright Office report referenced in the lawsuits warns that AI training involves multiple reproduction acts that could constitute infringement. "Meaning, the process in which Suno's/Udio's AI model trains, through the reproduction and copying of existing copyrighted songs, constitutes prima facie copyright infringement," according to the lawsuit. Justice's website describes him as "one of country music's most talked about independent artists" and a "full-time truck driver." His song, Last of the Cowboys, has accumulated over 8 million streams on Spotify, where he has over 54,700 monthly listeners. On YouTube, Justice has attracted over 28,000 subscribers. His lawsuits against Suno and Udio seek to establish a class action covering all independent artists, songwriters, and producers whose works appeared on streaming services since January 1, 2021. Justice seeks permanent injunctions preventing further unauthorized use of copyrighted works, plus damages up to $150,000 per infringed work. Suno is also facing a copyright infringement lawsuit in Germany, filed in January 2025 by GEMA, the German collection society and licensing body. The latest lawsuits against the two AI companies arrive about two weeks after Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the discussions, that the three majors are seeking license fees from the platforms plus "a small amount" of equity in both firms. [GN] TEMPUS AI: Shouse Sues Over Share Price Decline ----------------------------------------------- TREVOR SHOUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEMPUS AI, INC., ERIC LEFKOFSKY, and JIM ROGERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06534 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased Tempus common stock between August 6, 2024 and May 27, 2025, inclusive, against Tempus and certain of its officers and executives, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, Tempus branded itself as an AI company despite having little history of generating significant revenues from AI solutions. Instead, the Company generated most of its revenues from acquisitions, genomic testing and data licensing agreements. Unbeknownst to investors, the Defendants had failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not false and misleading. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose: (1) Tempus inflated the value of contract agreements, many of which were with related parties, included non-binding opt-ins and/or were self-funded; (2) the credibility and substance of the joint venture with SoftBank was at risk because it gave the appearance of "round-tripping" capital to create revenue for Tempus; (3) Tempus-acquired Ambry had a business model based on aggressive and potentially unethical billing practices that risked scrutiny and unsustainability; (4) AstraZeneca had reduced its financial commitments to Tempus through a questionable "pass-through payment" via a joint agreement between it, the Company and Pathos AI; (5) the foregoing issues revealed weakness in core operations and revenue prospects; and (6) as a result, Defendants' positive statements Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit. On this news, the price of Tempus common stock fell $12.67 per share, or 19.23%, from a closing price of $65.87 per share on May 27, 2025, to a closing price of $53.20 per share on May 28, 2025. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in market value of the Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Tempus AI, Inc. purports to be provide artificial intelligence (AI) enabled precision medicine solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Gabriel Mandler, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com VESTIS CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 8 ------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Vestis Corporation ("Vestis" or the "Company") (NYSE: VSTS) and reminds investors of the August 8, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. The complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by 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. 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." Following this news, 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. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Vestis' conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Vestis Corporation class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/VSTS or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that a consumer named Joseph Brennan just retained the Wolf to sue Wendy's in a TCPA class action arising out of text messages he claims he did not consent to. The texts promoted Wendy's food and a promotional program. Plaintiff hopes to represent a class of: National Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing text message or call from or on behalf of Defendant, (3) within a 12-month period, (4) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial. Will be interesting to see if the case arises out texts to a wrong number or if the Plaintiff signed up to receive the texts. Notably, retail chains have historically done a poor job of documenting SMS club opt ins via shortcode so there may be some meat on this one. Then again, if the guy has visited a Wendy's in the last 18 months it will have an EBR defense. Should also definitely disrupt the class. So will be very interesting. We'll see where this goes. [GN] WOOFTOWN WEST: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wills Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOOFTOWN WEST VILLAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03181 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.wooftown.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and visually impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on the website. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Wooftown West Village, LLC operates the website that serves as an online pet store offering pet nutrition, supplies, and educational resources for pet owners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com WORKFITNESS LLC: Wills Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORKFITNESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03185 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.worktrainfight.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and visually impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on the website. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. WorkFitness, LLC operates the website that serves as a gym offering boxing classes, strength training, youth boxing programs, and personal training in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com YRV ENTERPRISE: Briefing for Conditional Class Cert. Bid Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA ALVAREZ, et al., v. YRV ENTERPRISE, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00701-LKG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an order: (1) granting the Defendants' motion for an extension of time; (2) staying further briefing of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification, pending the Court's resolution of any motion to dismiss the complaint; and (3) directing the Defendants to answer, or otherwise respond to, the complaint on or before June 30, 2025. On March 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this putative class action. On May 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional class certification, identification of potential class members and approval of notice to potential class members. On May 30, 2025, the Defendants filed a consent motion for an extension of time to answer, or otherwise respond to, the complaint. The Defendants state that the Plaintiffs consent to these requests. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dkLntz at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***