250701.mbx

250701.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 1, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 130 Headlines 23ANDME HOLDING: Settles Data Breach Suits 300 BUILDING CONDOMINIUM: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property 3M COMPANY: Alsobrook Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: French Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Ingram Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams A-PLUS CARE: Objections to Authorizing Sending of Notice Overruled A.O. SMITH WATER: Fox Files Suit in S.D. California ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Class Cert Hearing Set for Jan. 9, 2026 ADAMS COMMUNITY BANK: Murach Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ADVANCE AUTO: Final Settlement Hearing in Breach Suit Set Oct. 23 AFLAC INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach AFLAC INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Griffin Alleges ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Ruelas Seeks Class Certification ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Judge Wants Class Claims in Foster Suit Dismissed ALIEXPRESS INTERNATIONAL: Illegally Obtains Users' Info, Suit Says ALTRIA GROUP: Reece Seeks Amendment of Sealing Procedures AMAZON RETAIL: Class Certification Ruling Entered in Chicas Suit AMERICAN ELECTRONIC: Summary Judgment Bids in Jackson Suit Denied AMERICAN HONDA: Raising of Discovery Dispute Extended to August 1 ANAVEX LIFE: Court Dismisses Huey Amended Complaint ANTHONY WILLS: Denial of Class Certification in French Case Upheld APPLE FEDERAL: $2.5MM Class Settlement in VFM Gets Approval ARORA HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Says ATHENA BITCOIN: Jackson Wins Class Certification Bid AURORA, CO: Elias Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification AZURE BLEU: $1.14MM Class Settlement in Blosser Gets Initial Nod BATON CORP: Burwick PLLC Appointed as Lead Counsel in Aguilar BATON CORP: Burwick PLLC Appointed as Lead Counsel in Carnahan BAUSCH & LOMB: Wins Bid to Dismiss Raskin Consumer Class Action BEDSHE INTERNATIONAL: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BLOCK INC: Bid to File Brief for Settlement Approval Motion OK'd BUMBLE INC: Court Approves Settlement Fund Distribution Plan C&H MOTORS: Plaintiff Must File Settlement Demand by August 13 CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Hopkins Gets Initial Nod CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Pitts Gets Initial Nod CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Port Suit Gets Initial Nod CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Savett Gets Initial Nod CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Sim Gets Initial Nod CAPPELLO'S LLC: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Stays Abrego Olea EPOA Lawsuit COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Barnes Due April 7, 2026 CONNECTICUT GENERAL: $147MM Class Settlement Gets Final Nod DAEDONG-USA INC: Court Consolidates Three Data Security Cases DELPHINUS: Settlement in Wilsterman Suit Denied Approval DOCKSIDE AT VENTURA: SFR Suit Seeks to Certify Rules 23 Class DOCTORS MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Beltran's Class Complaint Granted DONALD TRUMP: Orr Wins Class Certification Bid DOTERRA INT'L: Class Settlement in Bingham FLSA Suit Wins Approval DRINK LMNT: Faces Class Suit Over Drink Mix "All Natural" Claims EAP: Gateway, et al. Lose Bid to Continue Certification Hearings EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Case Management Order Entered in Hood Suit ELSEVIER INC: N.D. California Refuses to Dismiss Nguyen VPPA Suit EMANUEL MEDICAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Harrill Class Suit EMIRATES: Must Submit Opposition Paper in Farah by August 18 ERIE INDEMNITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hourigan Says EVO BRANDS: Amiel Must File Class Cert Response by July 1 EXXON MOBIL: Court Tosses Harris Class Action Complaint EYEMED VISION: Tate Seeks Initial Approval of $5MM Settlement FABULOUS FLOWERS: General Pretrial Management Entered FACEBOOK INC: Lead Plaintiffs Must File Amended Class Complaint FEDERAL EXPRESS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert. Schedule FEDEX CORPORATION: D'Aquin Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action FLORIDA: Faces Suit Over DMV's Inadequate Scheduling Procedures FULFILLMENT LAB: Class Settlement in Sihler Gets Initial Nod FUTURITY FIRST: Class Settlement in Verderame Gets Initial Nod GAVIN NEWSOM: Court Confirms Receiver-Nominee's Salary Rate GRAND WAILEA: Bolos Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification GRAND WAILEA: Conditional or Final FLSA Certification Sought HARD ROCK: Wins Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended King Class Complaint HARLEM GROUP: General Pretrial Management Entered in Carcamo Suit HD LIQUORS: Court Tosses Dorsey Discrimination Lawsuit HIMS & HERS: Berger Investigates Potential Securities Claims HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Bush Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to N.D. Alabama HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought HWAREH.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Zarif Due Dec. 26 IMMUNITYBIO INC: $2.98MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Co-Lead Counsel INGO MONEY: Class Settlement in Cantu Suit Gets Final Nod INT'L PAPER: Bid to Dismiss Rojas Suit Tossed With Leave to Refile IOWA STUDENT: Filing for Class Certification in Mason Due Oct. 24 JEWISH VOICE: Parties Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing KEVIN MAHONEY: Class Scheduling Order Entered in Bay Suit KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Partial OK of Class Cert Bid Sought KONICA MINOLTA: Yordanov's Expert Report Deemed Unpermitted, Void KPMG LLP: N.D. California Dismisses Kusen Securities Class Suit KRAFT HEINZ: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid to Nov. 21 KRISPY KREME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Guiang Suit Says KRISTI NOEM: Must File Class Cert Opposition by July 25 LAKEVIEW LOAN: Morrill Bid to File Class Reply Under Seal Granted LITE STAR: Court Vacates Pending Dates in Chea Suit LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Cuevas Due Sept. 2 LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Suit Seeks Class Certification MARDONE INC: Approval of Collective Settlement Deal Sought MARRIOTT INT'L: Camas Must File Class Cert Reply by July 11 MDL 3010: Google Seeks to File Class Cert Memo Under Seal MDL 3111: Settlement in Savings Account Suit Gets Initial Nod MEDSTAR HEALTH: Class Settlement in Riddick Gets Initial Nod MELNOR INC: Douglass Seeks Initial OK of Settlement META PLATFORMS: Sullivan Suit Transferred to N.D. California METRO ELECTRO: Reassignment Order Setting CMC Entered in Corsair METROPOLITAN COUNCIL: Fiorito Can't Pursue Class Action Claims MMG TAMIAMI SQUARE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS: Guinyard Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages NATIONAL CABLE: Horan Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sued Over Canceled Policies for Senior Pets NATURE'S PATH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Miller Due July 25 NEWREZ LLC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid OCUCO INC: Barnes Files Suit in M.D. Florida PACIFIC GAS: Moon Suit Removed to N.D. California PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Daniels Suit Removed to E.D. California PENN ABSTRACT: Court Dismisses Gahagan Suit Without Prejudice PINWHEEL LLC: De La Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PKL SERVICES: Balvaneda Suit Removed to S.D. California R.J. SULLIVAN: Strickland Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime RASSINI BRAKES: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Tamayo Suit Removed to C.D. California ROBERT THEDE: Cannon Suit Removed to N.D. California SABLE OFFSHORE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Heine Says SHALOM RESTAURANT: Lorenzo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SIX FLAGS AMERICA: Dunn Suit Removed to D. Maryland SLOWEAR NEW YORK: Anderson Alleges Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SPACE COAST: 11th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in Merritt SPRINTFONE INC: Bland Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York STEW LEONARD'S: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Says TAXSLAYER LLC: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Suit for $840,000 TERRAMAR CAPITAL: Lacy Suit Removed to S.D. California TEXTRON AVIATION: CBP Air Files Suit in M.D. Florida TOWER EV: Evans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRIPADVISOR LLC: Andersen Sues Over Illegal Use of Pixel Trackers UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Court Orders Doe Plaintiffs to Use True Names VENTURA PARK: Sierra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VESTRA LABS: Abercrombie Wage Suit Remanded to State Court VINFAST AUTO LLC: Swigi Files Suit in C.D. California VISION SERVICE: Has Until July 11 to Respond to Tash Complaint WELLNESS TOGETHER: Neeley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WHITE KNIGHT PEST: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages WOOT SERVICES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE: Arthur Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ********* 23ANDME HOLDING: Settles Data Breach Suits ------------------------------------------ 23andMe Holding Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in June 11, 2025, that multiple class action claims were filed against the company in state and federal courts. On March 21, 2025, the company entered into settlements with arbitration claimants represented by Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and plaintiffs represented by Potter Handy, LLP in actions filed in the Superior Court of the State of California relating to an incident when certain user information was accessed from individual 23andMe.com accounts without the account users' authorization. 23andMe is crowdsourced platform for genetic research utilizing a data engine of genetic and phenotypic information provided by millions of engaged customers. 300 BUILDING CONDOMINIUM: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property --------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. THE 300 BUILDING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-22742-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 17, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. THE 300 BUILDING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., operates, controls and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots, and all the common areas at the Commercial Property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Alsobrook Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert A. Alsobrook, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-901948.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00965-MHH. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: French Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gilbert J. French, individually and as personal representative for Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04619-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Harris, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-04554-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Ingram Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Louis E. Ingram, Sr., individually and as personal representative for Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04541-RMG (D.S.C., June 16, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Sabrena Jones, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-04558-RMG (D.S.C., May 27, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reginald Jones, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-04555-RMG (D.S.C., May 27, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com A-PLUS CARE: Objections to Authorizing Sending of Notice Overruled ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISE REID, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. A-PLUS CARE HHC INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01163-JPC-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John P. Cronan entered an order adopting report and recommendation and overruling defendants' objections: The Court overrules the Defendants' objections to Judge Aaron's Order authorizing the sending of notice of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective, with a notice period of three years, and adopts in its entirety his recommendation that class certification of Plaintiff's New York Labor Law ("NYLL") claims be denied. The parties are reminded that, per Judge Aaron's Order regarding the conditional certification of a FLSA collective, "the parties shall meet and confer and Plaintiff file to the ECF docket a revised proposed notice limited to the FLSA collective no later than seven days" from the date of this Order. R&R at 14-15. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions pending at Docket Numbers 42, 48, and 66. SO ORDERED. In sum, Judge Aaron committed no error in concluding that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiff’s first objection is overruled. Louise Reid, a former home health aide, brings this action against past employer, A-Plus Care HHC Inc., and three of its executives, alleging wage-and-hour claims under federal and state law. Pending are Plaintiff’s motions for certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and for class certification of her New York Labor Law ("NYLL") claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On Sept. 15, 2024, the Plaintiff moved for certification of a collective action under FLSA and for class certification of her NYLL claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendants filed objections to Judge Aaron’s Report and Recommendation and Order. A-Plus is a licensed home care agency providing home care services to the New York Metropolitan area. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NhGx2I at no extra charge.[CC] A.O. SMITH WATER: Fox Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.O. Smith Water Treatment (North America), Inc. The case is styled as Casey Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A.O. Smith Water Treatment (North America), Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01552-WQH-DEB (S.D. Cal., June 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. A. O. Smith -- https://www.aosmith.com/ -- is known as one of the world's leading providers of water heating and water treatment solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grace Bennett, Esq. Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Email: grace@dovel.com simon@dovel.com ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Class Cert Hearing Set for Jan. 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT P. DEWINDT, v. ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00654-WLH-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley L. Hsu entered a civil pretrial schedule and trial order. The Scheduling Conference scheduled for June 20, 2025, is vacated. The pretrial schedule governing this case is set forth in the far right column labeled "Court Order" located on the parties' Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates Worksheet, which accompanies this Order. While parties should be prepared to start trial on the date set by the Court and should appear on that date absent further order, the parties and their witnesses should be prepared to trail for up to 30 days if needed. If the parties wish to set additional or alternative dates, they must file a stipulation and proposed order setting forth the dates requested and demonstrating good cause. Setting additional or alternative dates may be especially appropriate in class actions, patent cases, or cases for benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Last Date to Hear Motion for Class Jan. 9, 2026 Certification: Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Jan. 9, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Initial): Jan. 23, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Feb. 6, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Feb. 6, 2026 Absolute is a company that manages portfolios of consumer assets. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TEntxY at no extra charge.[CC] ADAMS COMMUNITY BANK: Murach Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adams Community Bank. The case is styled as Terri Murach on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Adams Community Bank, Case No. 2576CV00115 (Mass. Super. Ct., Berkshire Cty., June 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases." Adams Community Bank -- https://www.adamscommunity.com/ -- is a licensed community bank offering various financial services including personal and business banking, as well as digital banking solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Appel, Esq. KETTERER BROWNE AND ASSOCIATES LLC 336 South Main St. Bel Air, MD 21014 Phone: (855)522-5297 ADVANCE AUTO: Final Settlement Hearing in Breach Suit Set Oct. 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Advance Auto Parts agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a data breach that compromised employee and job applicant information. The Advance Auto Parts settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notification from Advance Auto Parts informing them that their private information was potentially compromised in a data breach. In May 2024, an Advance Auto Parts data breach reportedly compromised the information of 2.3 million job applicants and employees. According to a class action lawsuit against Advance Auto Parts, the company failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect employee and job applicant information. Advance Auto Parts is an automotive parts retailer with locations across the United States. Advance Auto Parts has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Advance Auto Parts settlement, class members can receive a cash payment for documented losses related to the data breach. These payments will vary depending on the losses claimed but may be as high as $5,000. Class members who live in California can also receive a cash payment of around $100 for claims under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). CCPA payments may be increased or decreased depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. In addition to cash payments, the settlement also offers two years of credit and identity monitoring through Kroll Essential Monitoring. Class members can opt for an alternative cash payment of around $100 instead of receiving the credit and identity monitoring offered by the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 23, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Advance Auto Parts data breach settlement is scheduled for Oct. 23, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 8, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals in the United States who were sent a notification from Advance Stores Company Inc. that their private information was potentially compromised as a result of a data incident. Potential Award Up to $5,200 Proof of Purchase Invoices, account statements, tax documents, credit reports and other documentation of losses related to the data breach. 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 10/08/2025 Case Name In re: Snowflake Inc. Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-03126-BMM-JTJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana Final Hearing 10/23/2025 Settlement Website AAPDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Advance Auto Data Incident Action c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 420-3832 Class Counsel J. Devlan Geddes GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER P.C. Raphael Graybill GRAYBILL LAW FIRM P.C. John Heenan HEENAN & COOK PLLC Amy Keller DICELLO LEVITT LLP Jason S. Rathod MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP Defense Counsel Alfred J. Saikali Joshua Becker SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP [GN] AFLAC INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Business Insurance reports that a Texas woman filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Aflac Inc. after receiving a notice about a data breach that could have given hackers access to her personally identifiable information and protected health information. The plaintiff alleges that the insurer failed to take reasonable precautions to protect its customers' sensitive information. The lawsuit, Jessica Batiste et al. v. Aflac Inc., was filed in federal court in Columbus, Georgia, where Aflac is based. Aflac's data security measures were "impermissibly inadequate" because it did not encrypt the information, the lawsuit alleges. The plaintiff says she learned about the breach June 20 when she received a notice from Aflac about the June 12 incident. She says in her lawsuit that she now suffers from anxiety for fear that the leak of her private information puts her at a higher risk for identity theft and other types of fraudulent schemes, such as ransomware attacks. "The exposure of one's private information to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be un-rung. Before this data breach, plaintiff's and the class's private information was exactly that -- private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure," the lawsuit says. The plaintiff alleges that Aflac was negligent because it failed to comply with federal and state regulations and industry best practices for protecting private information. Representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for comment. [GN] AFLAC INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Griffin Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ELEANOR GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, Case No. 4:25-cv-00183-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 20, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise sensitive information entrusted to Defendant (the Data Breach) that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other individuals, that was compromised in a cyber incident in June 2025. On June 12, 2025, Defendant identified suspicious activity on its IT Network. In response, Defendant promptly initiated its cyber incident response protocol and launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach.3 5. Defendant has confirmed that the Data Breach was led by a sophisticated cybercrime group. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries as a direct result of the Data Breach, including financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft, and loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft. The Defendant is a Fortune 500 company that provides financial protection to millions of policyholders and customers through its subsidiaries in the U.S. and Japan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Ruelas Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMIDA RUELAS; DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX; BERT DAVIS; KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; SCOTT ABBEY; and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; YESENIA SANCHEZ, SHERIFF; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 4:19-cv-07637-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 18, 2025, will move the Court for an order certifying this proceeding as a class action pursuant to Rules 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed class and subclass, on whose behalf the representative plaintiffs named in the Second Amended Complaint bring constitutional and statutory claims, are defined as: The Class consists of "all pretrial detainees who work or who have worked for Aramark in the Santa Rita Jail Kitchen during the period Nov. 20, 2015 to the present, without compensation." The subclass, the "Equal Protection Subclass," consists of: "all women who worked for Aramark in the Santa Rita Jail Kitchen during the period Nov. 20, 2015 to the present, without compensation." The Plaintiffs further request an order appointing the undersigned counsel to represent the certified class and subclass pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Class seeks relief from defendants under the following claims: Thirteenth Amendment, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA"), California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and California Bane Act. The Subclass seeks relief from all defendants for the plaintiffs' claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Alameda is a county located in the U.S. state of California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mh7Yfd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dan Siegel, Esq. Emilyrose Johns, Esq. Sara Beladi, Esq. SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA q94612 Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 E-mail: danmsiegel@gmail.com emilyrose@siegelyee.com sbeladi@protonmail.com ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Judge Wants Class Claims in Foster Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico recommends that class action claims and causes of action in the case captioned as COURTNEY FOSTER and MATTHEW KISCADEN, on their behalf and on Behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant, 19-cv-00270-MV-JFR (D.N.M.) be dismissed. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Class Action Allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed May 30, 2025 Plaintiffs originally sought to represent a class of all "registered owners of motor vehicles seized pursuant to the City of Albuquerque's DWI vehicle forfeiture ordinance between March 26, 2016 and June 30, 2018." On Sept. 23, 2024, before the Court ruled on Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class as to Count I, Plaintiffs withdrew their motion to certify the purported class. As explained in the Motion -- and reflected in the minutes of the most recent status conference in this case, filed May 16, 2025 -- Plaintiffs Courtney Foster and Matthew Kiscaden intend to proceed with their individual claims only. A copy of the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6iaZxA ALIEXPRESS INTERNATIONAL: Illegally Obtains Users' Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH ABDULLAH on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ALIEXPRESS INTERNATIONAL (UNITED STATES) CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-05206 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2025) alleges that the Defendant installed and activated pixel trackers without obtaining user consent or a valid court order pursuant to the California Penal Code. A pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. It typically appears as a small, transparent 1x1 image or a lightweight JavaScript snippet that activates when a webpage is loaded or a user performs a tracked action. When triggered, the pixel transmits data from the user's browser to a third-party server. This data typically includes page views, session duration, referrer URLs, IP address, browser and device details, and other interaction metadata. When users visit the Website, Defendant causes tracking technologies to be embedded in visitors' browsers. These include, but are not limited to, the following: -- Google Ads/DoubleClick Tracker -- Facebook PixelTracker -- Bing/Microsoft Ads Tracker -- The Trade Desk Tracker -- Pinterest Tracker -- Rubicon Tracker. ALIEXPRESS INTERNATIONAL is a U.S.-based online shopping platform. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com ALTRIA GROUP: Reece Seeks Amendment of Sealing Procedures --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group, Inc. et al. (RE: JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order amending the sealing procedures set forth under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 79-5 for purposes of the Plaintiffs' class certification briefing to be filed on June 20, 2025. All other parties—JLI, Altria, Individual Defendants, Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, and Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs—agree with the relief sought. The Plaintiffs file their class certification briefs and supporting papers conditionally under seal, without filing redacted versions, on June 20, 2025. The parties meet and confer to provide the Court with a consolidated chart identifying what information should remain under seal on July 18, 2025, one month after Plaintiffs’ filing (including with respect to any third party materials provisionally sealed). The Plaintiffs believe that this procedure will decrease the burden on the Court, the parties, and potentially non-parties by eliminating filing motions to seal and responsive papers with respect to materials that ultimately may not be sealed. Altria manufactures and sells smokeable and oral tobacco products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0dBdXo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Ronnie Spiegel, Esq. David H. Seidel, Esq. Itak Moradi, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com rspiegel@saverilawfirm.com dseidel@saverilawfirm.com imoradi@saverilawfirm.com AMAZON RETAIL: Class Certification Ruling Entered in Chicas Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN CHICAS, et al., v. AMAZON RETAIL LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-10306-FMO-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order Re: motions for class certification: The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties’ response. The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence (including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.). All necessary evidentiary objections shall be made in the relevant section(s) of the joint brief. In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than thirty-five (35) days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order. Amazon is a retail establishment that offers a wide range of products to its customers. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OQyjnE at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN ELECTRONIC: Summary Judgment Bids in Jackson Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denies a motion for summary judgment and a cross motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit styled JESSE JACKSON, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ELECTRONIC WARFARE ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01456-TDC (D. Md.). Plaintiff Jesse Jackson, acting individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, has filed this civil action against his former employer, American Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc. ("AEWA"), in which he alleges that he did not receive overtime pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"); and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"). He asserts the FLSA claim as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and the Maryland state law claims as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Presently pending before the Court are (1) AEWA's Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Jackson's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Jackson's Motion for a Protective Order, Corrective Notice, and Additional Requests for Production ("the Motion for a Protective Order"). For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, AEWA's Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied, Jackson's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied, and Jackson's Motion for a Protective Order will be granted in part and denied in part. AEWA is a corporation that provides technological services for the United States Department of Defense ("DOD") pursuant to government contracts. Plaintiff Jesse Jackson worked at AEWA as an engineer from Feb. 2, 2015, to Sept. 2, 2021, when he resigned. His job duties included, among other activities, developing technical and engineering standards, conducting tests and analyzing results, setting up databases, and maintaining equipment for testing. In the Complaint, Jackson alleges that he and other similarly situated AEWA employees were paid on an hourly basis and were not paid one-and-a-half times their hourly rate for overtime hours, as required by the FLSA, MWHL, and MWPCL. Jackson asserts that he is owed overtime pay for the overtime hours that he worked between June 14, 2019, and his last day of work, Sept. 2, 2021. On Aug. 10, 2023, the Court granted conditional certification of a collective action as to the FLSA claim ("the FLSA collective action"), Jackson v. Am. Elec. Warfare Assocs., Inc., No. TDC-22-1456, 2023 WL 5154518 (D. Md. Aug. 10, 2023) ("Jackson I"), and on Feb. 12, 2024, the Court certified a class action under Rule 23 on the Maryland state law claims ("the Maryland class action"), Jackson v. Am. Elec. Warfare Assocs., Inc., No. TDC-22-1456, 2024 WL 556230 (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2024) ("Jackson II"). The individuals, who were eligible to opt in to the FLSA collective action consisted of the following persons: "All current and former employees of [AEWA] during the past 3 years who were paid straight time for overtime" ("the FLSA class"), which covers at most the time period from Aug. 30, 2020, to Aug. 30, 2023, consisting of the three years prior to the issuance of the FLSA collective action notice. The class members for the Maryland class action consist of the following persons: "All current and former [AEWA] employees classified as exempt and paid straight time for overtime in Maryland from" June 14, 2019, through the date of class certification, which was Feb. 12, 2024 ("the Maryland class"). According to AEWA, 127 current or former employees fall within the definition of the FLSA class and 177 fall within the definition of the Maryland class (collectively, "the class members"). In its Motion for Summary Judgment, AEWA argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because the record definitively establishes that the class members are exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, MWHL, and MWPCL. In his Cross Motion Summary Judgment, Jackson argues that the record definitively establishes the opposite--that, at least under the pre-2023 pay system, the class members were not exempt employees--and seeks partial summary judgment on all claims relating to work conducted under that system. Separately, in his Motion for a Protective Order, Jackson asserts that AEWA engaged in improper communications with the class members during the opt-in period for the FLSA collective action and the opt-out period for the Maryland class action, which necessitates various forms of relief relating to the management of the class actions. In its Motion, AEWA seeks summary judgment on all claims on the grounds that the evidence establishes that the class members are exempt from the overtime pay requirements pursuant to the professional capacity exemption. AEWA asserts, and Jackson does not contest, that the only element of the professional capacity exemption in dispute is the requirement that the class members were compensated on a salary basis. Viewed in the light most favorable to Jackson, Judge Chuang finds that the evidence, including pay stubs, admissions of company officials, and the employee handbook, creates a genuine issue of material fact on whether, under the pre-2023 pay system, class members were guaranteed to receive the required minimum weekly salary as "a matter of right" rather than "of grace," as required to be paid on a salary basis pursuant to Section 604(b) of the FLSA. Where neither party has offered any specific argument as to whether the current pay system complies with either of the salary-basis tests, AEWA's Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied, Judge Chuang holds. Based on the same analysis of AEWA's Motion, the Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude partial summary judgment in Jackson's favor. Although the descriptions of the pre-2023 pay system as based on an hourly rate contained in the AEWA offer letters and notices of pay raises, as well as the admissions of AEWA officials, support the conclusion that AEWA paid class members on an hourly basis rather than a salary basis for purposes of Section 602(a), and they provide relevant evidence as to Section 604(b), Judge Chuang points out that those statements alone do not support a grant of partial summary judgment to Jackson where the Section 604(b) salary-basis test permits employers to pay exempt employees on an hourly basis and still comply with the salary-basis requirement if other conditions are met. Mr. Jackson also argues that AEWAs practice of requiring exempt employees to input vacation and sick leave into their timesheets when they worked fewer hours than required for a particular pay period is further evidence of an hourly pay scheme. However, based on the analysis of this issue discussed in this Memorandum Opinion, when viewed in the light most favorable to AEWA, such a practice could be consistent with payment on a salary basis because it may show that the company was seeking to ensure a certain amount of weekly salary even if the employee did not work a full work week, Judge Chuang opines. Where there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether the class members were paid on a salary basis under the pre-2023 pay system, Jackson's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied. In the Motion for a Protective Order, Jackson asserts that AEWA engaged in improper communications with class members during the opt-in period for the FLSA collective action and the opt-out period for the Maryland class action in which it allegedly misled class members about the claims in this case and impacted their willingness to join the lawsuit. Jackson requests various forms of relief including: (1) a protective order prohibiting AEWA from engaging in ex parte communications about this case with class members and from retaliating against employees for members about the FLSA collective action and the Maryland class action that require remedial measures. The Court will grant some of the forms of relief that Jackson has requested. First, where the Court has concluded that AEWA engaged in abusive communications with the class members, it will enter an Order prohibiting AEWA from engaging in further ex parte communications with class members about the lawsuit or retaliating against them. Second, where the Court has found that AEWA's communications contained misleading statements that discouraged participation in this lawsuit and undermined cooperation with Jackson's counsel, and supervisors were directed to give those communications "the widest dissemination possible," the Court will order the issuance of a corrective notice on AEWA letterhead and at AEWA's expense to the class members, who were current AEWA employees as of Aug. 31, 2023, March 5, 2024, or both, and it will order that these same class members have an additional 60 days to opt into the FLSA collective action. Although Jackson has submitted a proposed corrective notice, the Court will issue a more limited version that explains the need for the corrective notice, reinforces the guidance in the FLSA notice and the Maryland notice, provides a neutral explanation of class members' options to opt in or opt out, and provides notice of specific deadline extensions. The Court declines to issue the other forms of requested relief. As to the request that the Court order AEWA to invite Jackson's counsel to AEWA's premises to host a town hall meeting about this case, Jackson has provided no precedent supporting this kind of relief, and the Court finds that doing so would only further undermine the collective and class action process by creating a new opportunity for one side to present its view of the litigation without close supervision by the Court. Further, where the Court has not concluded that AEWA coerced any specific individuals to opt out of the Maryland class action, it will also deny Jackson's request to invalidate all of the opt-out forms submitted by current AEWA employees. The Court declines to invalidate the opt-out forms submitted by current AEWA employees. Nevertheless, in recognition of the fact that James Donovan's March 5, 2024 email may have misled or confused some class members about the nature of the claims in the lawsuits and may have unduly encouraged them to opt out of the Maryland class action, the Court will order that class members, who were current employees at the time of AEWA's communications and previously opted out of the Maryland class action be given the option to reverse that decision and opt back in within 60 days of the issuance of the corrective notice. Donovan is AEWA's Chief Operating Officer. Finally, as to Jackson's request for leave to serve additional requests for production on AEWA relating to this issue, where the Court has already detested that the present record warrants granting Jackson most of the requested relief, the Court finds that such additional discovery is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Motion for a Protective Order will be granted in part in that the Court will (1) prohibit AEWA from engaging in further ex-parte communications with class members about this litigation or retaliating against them; (2) direct AEWA to issue a court-approved corrective notice on its letterhead and at its expense to all class members, who were employed by AEWA as of Aug. 31, 2023, March 5, 2024, or both; (3) permit the class members, who receive the corrective notice to opt into the FLSA collective action within 60 days of the issuance of the corrective notice; and (4) permit the class members who receive the corrective notice and who previously opted out of the Maryland class action to opt back into the Maryland class action within 60 days of the issuance of the corrective notice. The Motion will otherwise be denied. For these reasons, the Court denies AEWA's Motion for Summary Judgment; denies Jackson's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; and grants in part and denies in part Jackson's Motion for a Protective Order, Corrective Notice, and Additional Requests for Production. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2jx5bves from PacerMonitor.com. AMERICAN HONDA: Raising of Discovery Dispute Extended to August 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shammam v. American Honda Finance Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00648 (S.D. Cal., Filed April 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Marilyn L. Huff entered an order granting in part the motion and continuing the deadline for Plaintiff to raise a discovery dispute regarding the production of class data from June 21, 2025, to August 1, 2025. If this action remains unresolved after July 17, 2025, the parties shall, without delay, raise any outstanding discovery dispute regarding the production of class data with the Court. Absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances, any such dispute shall not constitute good cause to modify the current deadline of Aug. 7, 2025, for filing a motion for class certification. All other aspects and deadlines of the Scheduling Order, dated April 16, 2025, remain in effect. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC] ANAVEX LIFE: Court Dismisses Huey Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTESSA HUEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES CORPORATION and Christopher U. Missling, Case No. 1:24-cv-01910-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Clerk of the court is directed to remove Docket No. 36 from the Court's list of pending motions and to close the file. Because the Plaintiff fails to allege any primary securities law violation by any defendant in this case, the Plaintiff's claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act is dismissed. Anavex is a biopharmaceutical company researching treatments for central nervous system diseases. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U5A5S0 at no extra charge.[CC] ANTHONY WILLS: Denial of Class Certification in French Case Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge David W. Dugan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the class certification ruling in the case captioned as MARCELLUS FRENCH, M21081, ALLEN FORD, Y24630, CHAPPEL CRAIGEN, M25917, Plaintiffs, vs. ANTHONY WILLS, STERRETT, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-1462-DWD (S.D. Ill.). This matter is before the Court on the Complaint filed jointly by Marcellus French, Allen Ford, and Chappel Craigen, all inmates of the Illinois Department of Corrections who currently reside at Menard Correctional Center. After warning the co-Plaintiffs about the risks of group litigation, Plaintiffs French, Ford, and Craigen opted to proceed jointly in this case by committing to paying individual filing fees and by tendering signed copies of the Complaint. The Court calculated initial partial fees and sent collection orders for French, Ford, and Craigen, but Menard has only released funds for Plaintiff French. Upon initial review of the Complaint, the Court designated the following operative claims: Claim 1: First Amendment claim related to the denial of Jumu'ah and/or Taleem services against Defendants Sterrett and Wills in their individual capacities (or against Defendant Wills in his official capacity for any injunctive relief sought) Claim 2: RLUIPA claim related to the denial of Jumu'ah and/or Taleem services against Defendant Wills in his official capacity Claim 3: Equal Protection claim related to the denial of Jumu'ah and/or Taleem services for inmates in the East cellhouse against Defendants Sterrett and Wills Encompassed in the Court's Oct. 15, 2024, Order for Service of Process, there was a discussion of the earlier Motion for Class Certification. The Court denied the Motion on the premise that pro se individuals cannot represent each other. It found that although the Plaintiffs have pled a sufficient complaint, it would still be inappropriate to allow them to proceed as legal representatives for others in this action. Thus, Ford's Motion for Class Certification was denied. Plaintiff French has filed a Motion for Reconsideration about the class certification issue wherein he argues there are many similarly situated inmates in his cellhouse at Menard that wish to present the same or similar claims about their religious exercise. He argues that there are many barriers that prevent his fellow inmates from pursuing litigation on their own behalf, and thus a class action would be the best mechanism to allow them to pursue their rights. Recognizing that he and his co-Plaintiffs cannot act as counsel for fellow inmates, he then explains that he has attempted to contact at least four law firms about this potential class action, all to no avail. Thus, Plaintiff French argues that the Court should deem this case a class action, and it should recruit counsel to represent the class. He claims he submitted copies of his correspondence with counsel, but no such copies are attached. The Motion is allegedly signed by 39 individuals, including French and Ford. To the extent that French simply asks for reconsideration of the Court's earlier ruling on class certification, his Motion 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. Construed as a Motion for Recruitment of Counsel, the Motion also fails because Plaintiff has not attached proof of his efforts to recruit outside counsel, and this is a precondition to the Court considering recruitment of counsel. Finally, the Court notes that the Motion is accompanied by signatures of 37 fellow inmates, but this does not change the analysis because these individuals are not parties to this case. Ford and French signed and are parties, so the Motion was considered on their behalf, but none of the other individuals are parties, so they cannot file in this case to seek any relief. If these additional individuals wish to pursue their claims about religious exercise, they will need to file their own individual lawsuits to proceed. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9AVvl1 from PacerMonitor.com. APPLE FEDERAL: $2.5MM Class Settlement in VFM Gets Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIRGINIA IS FOR MOVERS, LLC, et al, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, V. APPLE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00576-DJN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David J. Novak entered an order approving class action settlement. 1. The Court finds that Defendant has complied with the notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. section 1715. 2. The settlement includes, as set forth in greater detail in the Agreement, a $2,500,000 common fund to cover Settlement Class Member Payments, attorneys' fees and costs, and service awards for the named Plaintiffs, and the costs of notice and administration. 3. The appointment of Virginia is for Movers, LLC, and Abigail McAllister as Class Representatives is confirmed. 4. The appointment of Class Counsel of Lynn A. Toops of Cohen & Malad, LLP; Gerard Stranch, IV of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC; and Devon J. Munro of Munro Byrd P.C., is affirmed. There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment forthwith pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case is now closed. Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record. It is so ORDERED. Apple FCU is a not-for-profit, local credit union. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yDJJmw at no extra charge.[CC] ARORA HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Arora Hospitality Group LLC, d/b/a Mithaas, Case No. 2:25-cv-03463-ST (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Mithaas.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint asserts that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Arora 's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the suit. Mithaas.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs offered by Arora Hospitality Group. Arora Hospitality Group specializes in Indian cuisine with a focus on authentic flavors and contemporary presentation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com ATHENA BITCOIN: Jackson Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEON JACKSON, v. ATHENA BITCOIN, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00331-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mark E. Walker entered an order granting motion for class certification. The Court certifies the Internal Do Not Call Class, which includes: "All persons in the United States (1) to whom Athena delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one text message promoting goods or services within any 12-month period, (2) more than 30 days after receiving a message consisting solely of the word 'STOP', (3) between Aug. 20, 2020, to Aug. 20, 2024, (4) excluding business numbers." The Court also certifies the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") Stop Class, which includes: "All Florida residents (1) with telephone numbers having a Florida area code, (2) to whom Athena delivered, or caused to be delivered, one or more text messages promoting goods or services, (3) more than 15 days after receiving a message consisting solely of the word 'STOP', (4) between July 1, 2021, to Aug. 20, 2024." The Defendant operates ATMs where customers may purchase cryptocurrencies. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h7wwvZ at no extra charge.[CC] AURORA, CO: Elias Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH ELIAS, and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF AURORA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00212-PAB-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (a) conditionally certifying the class of collective Plaintiffs, and (b) approving the agreed "Notice of Collective Action," the agreed "Plaintiff's Consent Form," and the agreed opt-in procedure. The case is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff Joseph Elias, a former employee of the City, asserts claims against the City under the FLSA on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated persons. Plaintiffs allege that the City failed to pay overtime wages in violation of federal law. Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts a violation of Sections 207 and 215(a)(2) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 215(a)(2), based on the City's alleged failure to pay its employees overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per week while they were enrolled in training at the Aurora Fire Rescue Fire Academy. In the interests of judicial economy and minimizing the accrual of unnecessary attorneys’ fees and costs, the parties have agreed upon a conditional collective of Plaintiffs under the FLSA for Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint comprising the following two subgroups: All current and former employees of the City of Aurora who attended Entry Level training at the Aurora Fire Rescue Fire Academy during the period of June 18, 2022, through January 30, 2025, including specifically the following Fire Academy Classes: 2022-01 Entry [February 20, 2022-July 22, 2022] 2022-02 Entry [October 24, 2022-March 24, 2023] 2023-01 Entry [July 17, 2023-November 30, 2023] 2024-01 Entry [February 5, 2024-August 8, 2024] 2024-02 Entry [August 19, 2024-January 30, 2025] All current and former employees of the City of Aurora who attended Fast Track training at the Aurora Fire Rescue Fire Academy during the period of June 18, 2022, through May 8, 2025including specifically the following Fire Academy Classes: 2023-01 Fast Track [April 17, 2023-June 9, 2023] 2025-01 Fast Track [April 7, 2025-May 8, 2025] The Plaintiffs allege that the individuals described above were subject to a common policy or plan with respect to the City’s determination of their eligibility for overtime pay while attending the Fire Academy, and that such individuals therefore constitute an appropriate collective of Plaintiffs under the FLSA In the interests of judicial economy and minimizing the accrual of unnecessary attorneys' fees and costs, the parties have agreed upon the language of a "Notice of Collective Action," and "Plaintiff's Consent Form" for all opt-in Plaintiffs. Aurora is a home rule city located in Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas counties, Colorado, United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PsMkiW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matt Pierce, Esq. Alex Behn, Esq. Margaret Angelucci, Esq. ASHER, GITTLER, & D'ALBA, LTD. 200 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 720 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 263-1500 Facsimile: (312) 263-1520 E-mail: mjp@ulaw.com ajb@ulaw.com maa@ulaw.com AZURE BLEU: $1.14MM Class Settlement in Blosser Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicole M. Blosser, individually, derivatively on behalf of Renaissance Tower Horizontal Property Regime, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated; Azure Bleu, LLC; Edelyne Beauvais-Thomas; Jason E. Blosser; Eshellah D. Calhoun; Zachary G. Calhoun; David DiMaio; Linda DiMaio; Susan H. Ferguson; Four Parts Whole, LLC; Sharon M. Hubbard; Liberty Property Holdings SC, LLC; Carol A. Messenger; Jeffrey S. Palmer; Summalin, Inc.; Terry J. Tuminello; Shelley Ware; and Jonathan S. Williams, v. Jeffrey L. Richardson; William S. Spears; Brent M. Whitesell; Laurie Z. Wunderley; Madeline R. Mercer; Catherine M. Gregor; Dennis J. Sassa; Tracy A. Meadows; Peter A. Grusauskas; and William Douglas Management, Inc., Renaissance Tower Horizontal Property Regime, Case No. 4:22-cv-03556-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order granting consent motion for preliminary approval of class action and derivative action settlement: 1. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and for purposes of the Motion only, the court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All persons or entities who owned a residential condominium unit in the Renaissance Tower Horizontal Property Regime on Oct. 7, 2022, excluding: (a) any Judge presiding over this action and members of their families; (b) the Defendants and their spouses, parents, children, siblings, and any entity for which a majority ownership interest is held alone or in combination by Defendants and their spouses, parents, children, and siblings; and (c) all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class in accordance with the orders of this Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." 2. The court appoints Nicole M. Blosser as Class Representative. 3. The court appoints F. Elliotte Quinn IV and Rachel Igdal of The Steinberg Law Firm, LLC and Jaan G. Rannik of Epting & Rannik, LLC as Class Counsel. 4. A common fund is agreed to by the Parties in the Settlement Agreement and is established and shall be known as the Blosser, et al. v. Richardson, et al. Litigation Settlement Fund. The Settlement Fund shall be a "qualified settlement fund" within the meaning of Treasury Regulations section 1.468B-1(a) promulgated under Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code. The Settlement Fund shall consist of $1,140,000.00 and any interest earned thereon. 5. The Plaintiffs' Counsel shall file a Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses on or before Aug. 22, 2025. 6. The Parties shall file a Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement on or before Sept. 5, 2025, along with any necessary supporting information. 7. The Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Honorable Sherri A. Lydon at the J.L. McMillan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Evans Street in Florence, South Carolina, on Tuesday, Oct. 21 at 10 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pjQmqY at no extra charge.[CC] BATON CORP: Burwick PLLC Appointed as Lead Counsel in Aguilar ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIEGO AGUILAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BATON CORPORATION LTD., d/b/a PUMP.FUN, ALON COHEN, DYLAN KERLER, and NOAH BERHARD HUGO TWEED ALE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00880-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McMahon entered an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. These are two securities fraud putative class actions filed by a single law firm against exactly the same defendants, two weeks apart. Both lawsuits allege that the defendants engaged in the sale of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency meme tokens. While the Aguilar complaint, which was the second filed action, is more detailed than the Carnahan complaint, it looks at first blush like both lawsuits are seeking the same relief for the same alleged violation of the 1933 Securities Act. The Wolf Popper law firm, in conjunction with Burwick Law PLLC, filed both actions. Pending before the court are two unopposed motions for lead counsel status - one by Aaron K venild in the Carnahan case; one by Michael Okafor in the Aguilar case. The time for filing opposing motions has expired in both cases. Both proposed lead plaintiffs ask that Wolf Popper and Burwick PLLC be appointed as lead counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Lsxpf at no extra charge.[CC] BATON CORP: Burwick PLLC Appointed as Lead Counsel in Carnahan -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENDALL CARNAHAN, v. BATON CORPORATION LTD., d/b/a PUMP.FUN, ALON COHEN, DYLAN KERLER, and NOAH BERHARD HUGO TWEEDALE, Case No. 1:25-cv-490-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McMahon entered an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. These are two securities fraud putative class actions filed by a single law firm against exactly the same defendants, two weeks apart. Both lawsuits allege that the defendants engaged in the sale of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency meme tokens. While the Aguilar complaint, which was the second filed action, is more detailed than the Carnahan complaint, it looks at first blush like both lawsuits are seeking the same relief for the same alleged violation of the 1933 Securities Act. The Wolf Popper law firm, in conjunction with Burwick Law PLLC, filed both actions. Pending before the court are two unopposed motions for lead counsel status - one by Aaron K venild in the Carnahan case; one by Michael Okafor in the Aguilar case. The time for filing opposing motions has expired in both cases. Both proposed lead plaintiffs ask that Wolf Popper and Burwick PLLC be appointed as lead counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZBMHSB at no extra charge.[CC] BAUSCH & LOMB: Wins Bid to Dismiss Raskin Consumer Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Bausch & Lomb, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the the case captioned as VALERIE RASKIN, Plaintiff, v. BAUSCH & LOMB INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-06442-AMO (N.D. Cal.). This is a putative consumer class action regarding the failure to warn of excessive zinc intake on the label of an eye health supplement. Defendant Bausch + Lomb, Inc.a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Rochester, New York. Bausch & Lomb manufactured, distributed, and/or sold PreserVision AREDS 2, a nutritional supplement intended to prevent and/or slow the progression of age-related macular degeneration. By design, PreserVision's daily dose of 80 mg of zinc is over 700% of the recommended dietary allowance of eight (8) mg per day. Beginning July 2018, Plaintiff Valerie Raskin began purchasing and taking PreserVision twice daily, seven days a week, as recommended by the label on its packaging. On May 23, 2022, Raskin's treating neurologist informed her that the cause of her copper deficiency myelopathy and all its associated symptoms was excess zinc consumption from the PreserVision supplement she took to prevent macular degeneration. In this case,Raskin advances a single cause of action for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. She alleges that Bausch & Lomb's marketing of PreserVision was both unfair and unconscionable and fraudulent and deceptive under the UCL, in that it failed to disclose or warn that it posed significant risks of substantial physical injury resulting from the use of PreserVision. Raskin claims that, without Bausch & Lomb's unfair and fraudulent conduct, she and Class Members would not have purchased PreserVision or would have paid less for it. Prior to filing this action, Raskin filed another case against Bausch & Lomb, captioned Raskin, et al. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., et al., No. 3:24-CV-04879 (N.D. Cal.). In the individual action, Raskin makes the same claims as the claims at issue in this case -- she alleges that Bausch & Lomb knowingly failed to warn Raskin and other consumers of "any risks associated with excess zinc consumption," and that she was injured as a result of that failure. The Court found this putative class action related to the individual action and ordered it reassigned for joint consideration. Bausch & Lomb moves to dismiss the operative pleading in this putative class action. It argues: (1) Raskin's claim for relief under California's Unfair Competition Law is insufficiently pleaded, (2) Raskin's claim for equitable relief cannot stand, and (3) this putative class action, brought after and separately from the individual action, fails under the doctrine of claim splitting. Bausch & Lomb avers that Raskin has engaged in claim splitting because the instant putative class action is essentially duplicative of the personal injury lawsuit she filed earlier with her husband. Raskin contends that her pursuit of different remedies under distinct theories of relief establishes that the two cases involve separate causes of action such that claim splitting does not apply. The Court finds that Raskin has engaged in claim splitting. According to the Court, the two cases share a common nucleus of operative facts despite the distinction between the claims and remedies pursued. Raskin had the opportunity to advance all her claims arising from the purchase and use of PreserVision in a single lawsuit, but she instead attempted to litigate on parallel tracks, filing this putative class action several weeks after initially filing the individual action. Parallel litigation of claims that could have been brought in the same lawsuit is exactly the conduct the doctrine of claim splitting is meant to prevent. The Court thus exercises its discretion and dismisses Raskin's individual claims in the later-filed putative class action with prejudice. It dismisses the claims of the putative class without prejudice to litigation by another putative class representative. The Court will hold a status conference at 10:00 a.m. on Aug. 14, 2025, to discuss Plaintiff's counsel's plan for the next steps in the case. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GBkt5Z from PacerMonitor.com. BEDSHE INTERNATIONAL: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- Darnell Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bedshe International Co., Ltd., Case No. 1:25-cv-06843 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Paul Evans provides to their non-disabled customers through https://bedsurehome.com (hereinafter "Bedsurehome.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Bedsurehome.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Bedshe International's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Bedshe International provides to the public a website known as Bedsurehome.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view various bedding products including blankets and throws, comforters, duvet covers and inserts, pillows and pillowcases, sheets, quilts, mattress pads and protectors, as well as cooling and heated bedding essentials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law BLOCK INC: Bid to File Brief for Settlement Approval Motion OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file overlength brief in support of motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case captioned as KIMBERLY BOTTOMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLOCK, INC. (F/K/A, SQUARE, INC.) (D/B/A, CASH APP), Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01969-MJP (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement must not exceed 6,500 words, excluding the table of contents, table of authorities, and signature block. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MuDpef from PacerMonitor.com. BUMBLE INC: Court Approves Settlement Fund Distribution Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Denise L. Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the lead plaintiff's distribution plan for the net settlement fund to authorized claimants in the securities class action IN RE BUMBLE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case 22-cv-00624-DLC (S.D.N.Y.). The Court-approved Claims Administrator, JND Legal Administration, is directed to conduct the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund after deducting all payments previously allowed, payments approved by this Order, and any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, while maintaining a 5% reserve from the Net Settlement Fund to address any tax liability or claims administration-related contingencies that may arise. Authorized Claimants whose Distribution Amount calculates to less than $200.00 will be paid their full Distribution Amount in the Initial Distribution These Authorized Claimants will receive no additional funds in subsequent distributions. 95% of the remaining balance of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed pro rata to Authorized Claimants whose Distribution Amount calculates to $200.00 or more. The remaining 5% of the Net Settlement Fund will be held in the Reserve to address any tax liability or claims administration-related contingencies that may arise following the Initial Distribution, including any, required modification of a Claim's status after consultation with the Settlement Administrator and Lead Counsel without necessitating further involvement of the Court. The Court finds that the administration of the Settlement and the proposed distribution of the Net Settlement Fund comply with the terms of the Stipulation and Plan of Allocation approved by this Court and that all persons involved in the review, verification, calculation, tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the Claims submitted, or who are otherwise involved in the administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, are released and discharged from any and all claims arising out of that involvement, and all Settlement Class Members and other Claimants, whether or not they receive payment from the Net Settlement Fund, are barred from making any further claims against the Net Settlement Fund, Lead Plaintiff, Lead Counsel, the Claims Administrator, the Escrow Agent, any other agent retained by Lead Plaintiff or Lead Counsel in connection with the administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, or any other person released under the Settlement beyond the amounts allocated to Authorized Claimants. All of JND's fees and expenses incurred in the administration of the Settlement and estimated to be incurred in connection with the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund are approved, and Lead Counsel is directed to pay the outstanding balance of $129,051.84 from the Settlement Fund to JND. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=orX4TN from PacerMonitor.com. C&H MOTORS: Plaintiff Must File Settlement Demand by August 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN A. YATES, v. C&H MOTORS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00151-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial order. The parties submitted their Rule 26(f) Report on June 16, 2025, and indicated their preference that the Court issue a Preliminary Pretrial Order without a conference. Accordingly, the June 23, 2025, preliminary pretrial conference is vacated. The parties have agreed to make initial disclosures by June 27, 2025. Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed no later than June 20, 2025. The motion for class certification, if any, must be filed no later than July 11, 2025. Primary expert reports, if any, must be produced by Sept. 15, 2025. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be produced by Oct. 15, 2025. All discovery shall be completed by Dec. 31, 2025. The Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by Aug. 13, 2025. Defendants shall respond by Aug. 27, 2025. C&H is an independently owned and operated full-service auto repair and maintenance facility. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u4Q6Fq at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Hopkins Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hopkins et al., v. Capital One, N.A. et al. (e CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-00292 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order 1. The Court provisionally certifies, for purposes of the settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons or entities who maintained a Capital One 360 Savings account at any time during the class period (i.e., from Sept. 18, 2019, through and including the date this Order is entered), including joint and co-holders of 360 Savings accounts, as reflected in the class list to be generated by Capital One." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Capital One, any entity in which Capital One has a controlling interest, and Capital One's officers, directors, legal representatives. successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over the action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court conditionally appoints Chet B. Waldman and his law firm Wolf Popper LLP as class counsel and The Kaplan Law Firm as local counsel, and designates Plaintiffs in the action, i.e., Dr. Scott C. Savett, Jay Sim, Amber Terrell, Angela Uherbelau, Gwendolyn Wright, Elizabeth Zawacki, Sheryl Barnes, Alessandra Bellantoni, Ayal Brenner, Anthony Guest, Samuel Hans, Ronald Hopkins, Michael Krause, Steve Lenhoff, Jerry Magana, Seth Martindale, Jennie Meresak, Gregory Mishkin, Andrew Molloy, Jay Nagdimon, Neelima Panchang, Sailesh Panchang, Patrick Perger Jr., Shantell Pitts, Howard Port and Jane Rossetti, as Settlement Class Representatives for purposes of this settlement. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The Settlement provides for Capital One to pay $425 million to Settlement Class members in two parts: $300 million in cash and $125 million in additional interest to class members who continue to hold 360 Savings Accounts. Capital is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j5HJBe at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Pitts Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pitts v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al. (CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01087 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order 1. The Court provisionally certifies, for purposes of the settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons or entities who maintained a Capital One 360 Savings account at any time during the class period (i.e., from Sept. 18, 2019, through and including the date this Order is entered), including joint and co-holders of 360 Savings accounts, as reflected in the class list to be generated by Capital One." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Capital One, any entity in which Capital One has a controlling interest, and Capital One's officers, directors, legal representatives. successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over the action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court conditionally appoints Chet B. Waldman and his law firm Wolf Popper LLP as class counsel and The Kaplan Law Firm as local counsel, and designates Plaintiffs in the action, i.e., Dr. Scott C. Savett, Jay Sim, Amber Terrell, Angela Uherbelau, Gwendolyn Wright, Elizabeth Zawacki, Sheryl Barnes, Alessandra Bellantoni, Ayal Brenner, Anthony Guest, Samuel Hans, Ronald Hopkins, Michael Krause, Steve Lenhoff, Jerry Magana, Seth Martindale, Jennie Meresak, Gregory Mishkin, Andrew Molloy, Jay Nagdimon, Neelima Panchang, Sailesh Panchang, Patrick Perger Jr., Shantell Pitts, Howard Port and Jane Rossetti, as Settlement Class Representatives for purposes of this settlement. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The Settlement provides for Capital One to pay $425 million to Settlement Class members in two parts: $300 million in cash and $125 million in additional interest to class members who continue to hold 360 Savings Accounts. Capital is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WZstD9 at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Port Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORT v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A.( CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01028 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order 1. The Court provisionally certifies, for purposes of the settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons or entities who maintained a Capital One 360 Savings account at any time during the class period (i.e., from Sept. 18, 2019, through and including the date this Order is entered), including joint and co-holders of 360 Savings accounts, as reflected in the class list to be generated by Capital One." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Capital One, any entity in which Capital One has a controlling interest, and Capital One's officers, directors, legal representatives. successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over the action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court conditionally appoints Chet B. Waldman and his law firm Wolf Popper LLP as class counsel and The Kaplan Law Firm as local counsel, and designates Plaintiffs in the action, i.e., Dr. Scott C. Savett, Jay Sim, Amber Terrell, Angela Uherbelau, Gwendolyn Wright, Elizabeth Zawacki, Sheryl Barnes, Alessandra Bellantoni, Ayal Brenner, Anthony Guest, Samuel Hans, Ronald Hopkins, Michael Krause, Steve Lenhoff, Jerry Magana, Seth Martindale, Jennie Meresak, Gregory Mishkin, Andrew Molloy, Jay Nagdimon, Neelima Panchang, Sailesh Panchang, Patrick Perger Jr., Shantell Pitts, Howard Port and Jane Rossetti, as Settlement Class Representatives for purposes of this settlement. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The Settlement provides for Capital One to pay $425 million to Settlement Class members in two parts: $300 million in cash and $125 million in additional interest to class members who continue to hold 360 Savings Accounts. Capital is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=otpLj4 at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Savett Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Savett, et al., v. Capital One N.A. and Capital One Financial Corp. (CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-00890 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order 1. The Court provisionally certifies, for purposes of the settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons or entities who maintained a Capital One 360 Savings account at any time during the class period (i.e., from Sept. 18, 2019, through and including the date this Order is entered), including joint and co-holders of 360 Savings accounts, as reflected in the class list to be generated by Capital One." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Capital One, any entity in which Capital One has a controlling interest, and Capital One's officers, directors, legal representatives. successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over the action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court conditionally appoints Chet B. Waldman and his law firm Wolf Popper LLP as class counsel and The Kaplan Law Firm as local counsel, and designates Plaintiffs in the action, i.e., Dr. Scott C. Savett, Jay Sim, Amber Terrell, Angela Uherbelau, Gwendolyn Wright, Elizabeth Zawacki, Sheryl Barnes, Alessandra Bellantoni, Ayal Brenner, Anthony Guest, Samuel Hans, Ronald Hopkins, Michael Krause, Steve Lenhoff, Jerry Magana, Seth Martindale, Jennie Meresak, Gregory Mishkin, Andrew Molloy, Jay Nagdimon, Neelima Panchang, Sailesh Panchang, Patrick Perger Jr., Shantell Pitts, Howard Port and Jane Rossetti, as Settlement Class Representatives for purposes of this settlement. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The Settlement provides for Capital One to pay $425 million to Settlement Class members in two parts: $300 million in cash and $125 million in additional interest to class members who continue to hold 360 Savings Accounts. Capital is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pYZoYp at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Settlement in Sim Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jay Sim v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al. (CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01031 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order: 1. The Court provisionally certifies, for purposes of the settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons or entities who maintained a Capital One 360 Savings account at any time during the class period (i.e., from Sept. 18, 2019, through and including the date this Order is entered), including joint and co-holders of 360 Savings accounts, as reflected in the class list to be generated by Capital One." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Capital One, any entity in which Capital One has a controlling interest, and Capital One's officers, directors, legal representatives. successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over the action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court conditionally appoints Chet B. Waldman and his law firm Wolf Popper LLP as class counsel and The Kaplan Law Firm as local counsel, and designates Plaintiffs in the action, i.e., Dr. Scott C. Savett, Jay Sim, Amber Terrell, Angela Uherbelau, Gwendolyn Wright, Elizabeth Zawacki, Sheryl Barnes, Alessandra Bellantoni, Ayal Brenner, Anthony Guest, Samuel Hans, Ronald Hopkins, Michael Krause, Steve Lenhoff, Jerry Magana, Seth Martindale, Jennie Meresak, Gregory Mishkin, Andrew Molloy, Jay Nagdimon, Neelima Panchang, Sailesh Panchang, Patrick Perger Jr., Shantell Pitts, Howard Port and Jane Rossetti, as Settlement Class Representatives for purposes of this settlement. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The Settlement provides for Capital One to pay $425 million to Settlement Class members in two parts: $300 million in cash and $125 million in additional interest to class members who continue to hold 360 Savings Accounts. Capital is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HjSK0s at no extra charge.[CC] CAPPELLO'S LLC: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE HUNTER, v. CAPPELLO'S LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02487-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order referring the pending motion for class certification to United States Magistrate Judge Allison Claire for issuance of findings and recommendations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 616(b)(1)(B) and (C). Cappello's is a Colorado-based gourmet food company specializing in high-end, gluten-free, grain-free products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hxm0Xf at no extra charge.[CC] CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Stays Abrego Olea EPOA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Richard A. Jones of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stays the case captioned as BILLY ABREGO OLEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., a foreign limited liability company; CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL OF COLORADO, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01643-RAJ (W.D. Wash.). On Oct. 9, 2024, Plaintiff Billy Abrego Olea filed this state law putative class action in King County Superior Court against Defendants Chipotle Mexican Grill, Chipotle Services LLC, Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, and various Doe Defendants for alleged violations of the pay transparency provision of the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA"), RCW 49.58.110. The parties attempted mediation, but the they indicate that those efforts have ended. On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court. Plaintiff contends remand is appropriate because the Complaint in this case is virtually identical to at least eighteen others that the Court remanded for lack of an injury-in-fact under Article III, which is required to invoke subject matter jurisdiction in federal court. The central issue before the District Court is what allegations are required for Article III standing in EPOA cases. After review of the EPOA caselaw, the District Court determines that it would be most efficient to resolve Plaintiff's Motion to Remand after the Washington Supreme Court answers pending certified questions. In Branson v. Washington Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC, No. 24-cv-00589-JHC, (W.D. Wash. Aug. 20, 2024), the Certified Question to the Washington Supreme Court is as follows: What must a Plaintiff prove to be deemed a "job applicant" within the meaning of RCW 49.58.110(4)? For example, must they prove that they are a "bona fide" applicant? Further, in the briefing for the certified question, Respondent-Defendant there asked the Washington State Supreme Court also answer whether: a "job applicant" under the EPOA must be a person who actually applied for the job with a good faith or bona fide interest in obtaining the posted job, and such a job applicant only suffers injury-in-fact sufficient to pursue a claim for relief if they establish a form of concrete and particularized harm that is something more than the time lost submitting an application. In Branson, the Respondent-Defendant's Answering Brief specifically raises the point that to qualify as a "job applicant" under the EPOA may require the plaintiff-applicant bringing the claims to have good faith or a bona fide intention of gaining employment. As that is an issue before the Supreme Court of Washington, the forthcoming ruling may implicate a remand decision in this case. Because the Washington Supreme Court is reviewing questions of central importance to this case, the District Court considers sua sponte whether to stay this case pending an answer to the certified questions. In considering a stay, it is possible that the parties may suffer some damage from a stay because the Washington Supreme Court's timing on answering the certified questions is unknown and resolution of all or part of the pending motion to remand relating to Plaintiff's lawsuit will be delayed in the interim. But the delay will not be indefinite because oral arguments were heard in the Washington Supreme Court on Feb. 13, 2025. The risk of damage appears slight because the resolution of the motion to remand does not appear to be urgent. A stay will not cause unnecessary delay because it will avoid the danger of inconsistent results. Therefore, the District Court finds only minimal possible damage from a stay. Both parties may experience some hardship or inequity in being required to go forward without guidance from the Washington Supreme Court because of the danger of conflicting rulings. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of a stay, the District Court concludes. The orderly course of justice strongly favors a stay, which will promote judicial economy by allowing the District Court to receive guidance from the Washington Supreme Court in Branson before issuing further rulings on the interpretation of "job applicant" which is a key term in the EPOA. In sum, the District Court finds that the relevant factors favor staying this case until the Washington Supreme Court issues a decision on the pending certified questions in Branson. The District Court terminates the motions pending in this case. The parties may re-file these motions following a decision from the Washington Supreme Court in the Branson case. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rjndvN from PacerMonitor.com. COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Barnes Due April 7, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE COCA-COLA CO., Case No. 1:22-cv-01511-KJM-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica Grosjean entered an order adopting the following schedule: 1. Discovery is open on the Plaintiff's individual and class claims. 2. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification and supporting expert reports by no later than April 7, 2026. 3. The Defendant shall file any opposition to motion for class certification and rebuttal expert reports by no later than May 7, 2026. 4. The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of motion for class certification and reply expert reports by no later than June 8, 2026. 5. A hearing on the Plaintiff's class certification motion will be held on July 16, 2026, 1 at 10:00 a.m. before Senior District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Coca-Cola manufactures, sells and markets soft drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=izTkoN at no extra charge.[CC] CONNECTICUT GENERAL: $147MM Class Settlement Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULETTE T. GLOVER and JOHN T. WAREHIME, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-00827-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Michael P. Shea entered an order on motion for final approval of settlement and motions for attorneys' fees, expense reimbursement, and service awards: -- The motion for final approval of settlement is granted. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for fees, expenses, and service awards is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Class Counsel shall receive $26,545,354.56 in attorneys' fees and $174.082.63 in reimbursement for expenses. Paulette Glover shall receive a $25,000 service award. John Warehime shall receive a $10,000 service award. The Objectors' motion for fees, expenses, and service awards is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Susman shall receive $2,949,483.84 in attorneys' fees. Susman's request for reimbursement for expenses is denied. The three plaintiffs in the Related Actions—Vida, TVPX, and Heckman—shall each receive service awards of $10,000. The Plaintiffs have moved for final approval of a proposed settlement between the defendants and the following class: "All persons who own or owned a life insurance policy, that was active on or after May 27, 2010, and was issued or administered by either Defendant, or their predecessors in interest, the terms of which provide or provided for: 1) a cost of insurance charge calculated using a rate that is determined based on expectations as to future mortality experience; 2) additional but separate policy charges, deductions, or expenses; 3) an investment, interest-bearing, or savings component; and 4) a death benefit." The case, involving an alleged breach of life insurance policy provisions governing "cost of insurance" ("COI") deductions from the investment portion of the policy, has been pending for nine years. The Plaintiffs, Paulette Glover and John Warehime, entered into a Settlement Agreement on behalf of themselves and a proposed Settlement Class of others similarly situated, resolving all claims against Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Lincoln National Life Insurance Company. The proposed settlement provides for $147,474,191.99 to about 191,000 policyholders, less attorneys’ fees and related expenses. ECF Nos. 230-1, 350. An Order for preliminary approval of the Settlement was entered by this Court on September 4, 2024. ECF No. 289. The Settlement is now presented to the Court on Class Counsel’s Motion for Final Approval of Settlement. ECF No. 328. The Plaintiffs have also filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expense Reimbursement, and Service Awards. ECF No. 302. Connecticut offers life, dental, and medical insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7NPf83 at no extra charge.[CC] DAEDONG-USA INC: Court Consolidates Three Data Security Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James C. Dever III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the following cases and appoint interim lead counsel: (1) ANDREW K. KHOUNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DAEDONG-USA, INC. (KIOTI TRACTOR DIVISION), Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00216-D; (2) BRIAN POLLARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DAEDONG-USA, INC., d/b/a KIOTI TRACTOR DIVISION, and DAEDONG, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00279-D; and (3) JOHN VIVERETTE, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DAEDONG-USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. Case No. 5:25-cv-00277-D. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the Court consolidates the Related Actions under the first filed action, Case No. 5:25-cv-00216-D, and with the new title "In re Daedong-USA Data Security Incident Litigation." Having given due consideration to the relevant factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(l) and (4), including, without limitation, Rule 23(g)(l)(A)(i)-(iv), and finding that the proposed counsel meet the adequacy requirements thereunder, Daniel Srourian of Srourian Law Firm, P .C., Leigh S. Montgomery of EKSM, LLP, and Brittany Resch of Strauss Borrelli, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Interim Co-Lead Class 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. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ep3n3K from PacerMonitor.com. DELPHINUS: Settlement in Wilsterman Suit Denied Approval -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul S. Diamond of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will deny without prejudice the plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as JASON WILSTERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DELPHINUS ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-01810 (E.D. Pa.). In this putative class action, Plaintiff Jason Wilsterman brings state law claims against his former employer, Delphinus Engineering, Inc., for failing to prevent a widespread employee data breach. For settlement purposes, Wilsterman moves unopposed for class certification, preliminary approval of the class action settlement, and related settlement terms. Wilsterman initiated the instant action on April 30, 2024, alleging: (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) breach of implied contract, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) breach of confidence, and (7) declaratory judgment. Settlement negotiations began some two months later (in June 2024). The Parties reached an agreement on the material terms in September 2024. The proposed Settlement Agreement provides a non-reversionary Settlement Fund of $350,000.00 for some 3151 Class Members. The Proposed Class is defined as follows: All individuals residing in the United States who have been identified by 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. For preliminary approval of the settlement, courts in this Circuit consider whether: (1) the negotiations occurred at arm's length; (2) there was sufficient discovery; and (3) the proponents of the settlement are experienced in similar litigation. In re GMC, 55 F.3d at 785. Applying the GMC factors, the Court finds there are obvious deficiencies in the proposed Settlement that preclude preliminary approval. According to the Court, it is by no means clear that the Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm's length. It also appears that there was insufficient discovery to ensure that the Parties were aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their cases. After counsel fees, costs, and the service award are paid, the average recovery for each Class Member will be less than modest, the grievous injuries allegedly suffered notwithstanding. Yet, the proposed Class Counsel Fee Award would constitute some 33% of the Settlement Fund -- at the top end awarded in similar data breach cases. It thus appears that benefit to the Class was of tertiary concern (coming after benefits to Class Counsel and Defendant) during the "arm's length" negotiations, the Court further finds. In these circumstances, Judge Diamond is unable to conclude, even under a 'lowered' standard, that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Quite to the contrary, there are grounds to doubt its fairness. He holds that 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. He will deny Plaintiff's Motion without prejudice. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BUfzh0 from PacerMonitor.com. DOCKSIDE AT VENTURA: SFR Suit Seeks to Certify Rules 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SFR SERVICES L.L.C. and SOUTH FLORIDA REAL ESTATE, LLC, v. DOCKSIDE AT VENTURA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., individually and on behalf of all Owners of Units Located in the Dockside at Ventura Condominium Community, Case No. 6:24-cv-00777-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (i) certifying a class under Rules 23(a), (b)(1), and (b)(3); (ii) defining the class pursuant to Count I of the Amended Complaint as: "all unit owners that own a condominium unit within the Dockside at Ventura Condominium Association, Inc., located at 2580 Woodgate Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32822"; (iii) appointing the Defendant, Dockside at Ventura Condominium Association, Inc. as Class Representative of the Defendant-Class; and (iv) appointing Thomas C. Allison, P.A. as Class Counsel. The case is about Dockside's failure to pay SFR and SF Real Estate in excess of $15,000,000. This amount is for work performed and money loaned to Dockside to improve real property located at 2580 Woodgate Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32822 and all of the units located in the Dockside community as a result of flood damage sustained from Hurricane Ian. On Jan. 3, 2023, SFR and Dockside signed an interior scope of work contract for 4 buildings at Dockside (Building Nos. 2556, 2564, 2568, and 2572) related to the flood claim (the "January Flood Claim Contract"). On Sept. 5, 2023, SFR and Dockside signed an interior scope of work contract for the remaining 15 buildings at Dockside related to the flood claim (the "September Flood Claim Contract" and together with the "January Flood Claim Contract", the "Flood Claim Contracts"). The total value of the Flood Claim Contracts as set forth in Exhibit C was $26,789,742.70 for work to be performed concerning Dockside's flood claim. Pursuant to the Flood Claim Contracts, and after certain payments were made to SFR as reflected therein, the balance owed as of August 31, 2023 was $18,278,238.04. SFR is a general and roofing contractor that repairs and replaces roofs. Dockside offers a range of residential units in a convenient Orlando, FL location. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZI18iu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua B. Alper, Esq. SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & HERMANN P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 477-7800 Facsimile: (561) 477-7722 E-mail: jalper@sbwh.law dgenossar@sbwh.law floridaservice@sbwh.law DOCTORS MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Beltran's Class Complaint Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dena Coggins of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class action complaint filed in the lawsuit titled LORI BELTRAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01670-DC-CKD (E.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs are residents of California, who used the Website to search for information about health conditions, symptoms, and doctors. The Plaintiffs are also Facebook users. Tenet is a health system and services platform comprised of three different business units--surgical centers, hospital operations, and healthcare-focused customer service and revenue management. DMC is a full-service, comprehensive healthcare facility in Modesto, California. DMC is the largest hospital between the California cities of Stockton and Fresno, admits more than 22,000 patients annually, and treats more than 100,000 emergency patients each year. DMC maintains a public-facing Website where prospective and current patients can "search for information related to their health conditions, hospital locations and doctors." On Aug. 10, 2023, Plaintiffs Lori Beltran, Brittany Matus, Preston Meisner, Paul Blumberg, and Mark Mehring filed a class action complaint against Defendants Doctors Medical Center of Modesto ("DMC") and Tenet Health ("Tenet") for allegedly intercepting and transmitting their protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII") to Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta"), formerly known as Facebook, without their knowledge or consent. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants transmitted their PHI and PII to Meta via a hidden tracking tool known as Meta Pixel ("Pixel") that was installed on the Defendant DMC's website at https://www.dmc-modesto.com/ ("Website"). The Plaintiffs bring five causes of action against the Defendants: (1) invasion of privacy -- intrusion upon seclusion under California common law; (2) invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, Art. I Section 1; (3) violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"); (4) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); and (5) breach of implied contract. The Plaintiffs bring this data privacy action against the Defendants on behalf of themselves, a "nationwide class," and a "California subclass." The "nationwide class" is defined as "[a]ll natural persons in the United States whose PHI was collected through [Meta's] Pixel through the Website." The "California subclass" is defined as "[a]ll natural persons residing in California whose PHI was collected through [Meta] Pixel through the Website." The Plaintiffs' common law claims for invasion of privacy and breach of implied contract are brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the nationwide class. The Plaintiffs' remaining claims, which arise under the California Constitution and California statutes, are brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the California subclass. On Oct. 3, 2023, the Court issued an order relating this action to two other actions pending in this district: (1) Harrill v. Emanuel Medical Center, et al., No. 2:23-cv-01672-DCCKD, and (2) Doe v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01106-DC-CKD. On Oct. 18, 2023, the Defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On June 28, 2024, the Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of their motion to dismiss. On July 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the pending motion. On July 19, 2024, the Defendants filed their reply thereto. The Defendants move to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims brought against them. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed because it (1) fails to allege facts sufficient to support a cognizable legal theory, (2) is deficient with respect to each claim, and (3) is wholly or partly time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court finds the allegations in the Plaintiffs' complaint deficient. Judge Coggins opines that the Plaintiffs do not identify with specificity what information they provided to the Defendants via their browsing activity on the Website and, thus, what information was subsequently transmitted to Meta. Although the Plaintiffs' complaint spans over 50 pages, only two pages are dedicated to detailing the Plaintiffs' interactions with the Defendants' Website. The Plaintiffs vaguely allege that they used the Website to search for information related to "actual or potential" health conditions. For these reasons, and because all of the Plaintiffs' claims are predicated on their theory that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' privacy rights by collecting and transmitting their PHI to Meta via Pixel, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. However, because allegations of additional facts could cure this pleading deficiency as to the Plaintiffs' legal theory, the Court grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend. The Court also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs fail to state a cognizable invasion of privacy claim because they have not pleaded a reasonable expectation of privacy or a highly offensive intrusion. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claims brought under common law and the California Constitution. Because the Plaintiffs may be able to allege additional facts to support this claim, the Court grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend. For the reasons set forth in the Order, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to as follows: (a) the Plaintiffs' claim for invasion of privacy under California common law is dismissed with leave to amend; (b) the Plaintiffs' claim for invasion of privacy under the California Constitution is dismissed with leave to amend; (c) the Plaintiffs' CMIA claim is dismissed with leave to amend; (d) The CIPA claim brought by Plaintiffs Lori Beltran, Preston Meisner, Paul Blumberg, and Mark Mehring is dismissed with leave to amend; (e) the CIPA claim brought by Plaintiff Brittany Matus is dismissed, without leave to amend; and (f) the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of implied contract is dismissed with leave to amend. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of entry of this Order, the Plaintiffs will file a first amended complaint, or alternatively, file a notice of their intent not to file a first amended complaint. The Plaintiffs are warned that their failure to comply with this Order may result in an order dismissing this case due to their failure to prosecute. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtkz8pn6 from PacerMonitor.com. DONALD TRUMP: Orr Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHTON ORR, ZAYA PERYSIAN, SAWYER SOE, CHASTAIN ANDERSON, DREW HALL, BELLA BOE, REID SOLOMON-LANE, VIKTOR AGATHA, DAVID DOE, AC GOLDBERG, RAY GORLIN, AND CHELLE LEBLANC, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-10313-JEK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Julia E. Kobick entered an order granting as modified the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The following classes are certified: 1. A class of all people (1) whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them under the Passport Policy and/or who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and (2) who have applied, or who, but for the Passport Policy, would apply, for a U.S. passport issued with an "M" or "F" sex designation that is different from the sex assigned to that individual under the Passport Policy ("M/F Designation Class"); 2. A class of all people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them under the Passport Policy and who have applied, or who, but for the Passport Policy, would apply, for a U.S. passport with an "X" designation ("X Designation Class"). Excluded from these classes are any judge presiding over this action and the plaintiffs in Schlacter v. U.S. Department of State, No. 25-cv-01344 (D. Md. filed Apr. 25, 2025). The Plaintiffs Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Chastain Anderson, Drew Hall, Bella Boe, Reid Solomon-Lane, Viktor Agatha, David Doe, AC Goldberg, and Chelle LeBlanc are appointed as representatives of the M/F Designation Class. The Plaintiffs Sawyer Soe and Ray Gorlin are appointed as representatives of the X Designation Class. The Plaintiffs' counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and Covington & Burling LLP are appointed as class counsel. The plaintiffs' motion to apply the preliminary injunction to the classes is granted. The Plaintiffs Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Chastain Anderson, Drew Hall, Bella Boe, and Reid Solomon-Lane, each of whom is transgender or non-binary, filed the original class action complaint in February 2025. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2xHTcF at no extra charge.[CC] DOTERRA INT'L: Class Settlement in Bingham FLSA Suit Wins Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted the parties' Stipulated Motion for Approval of the Settlement Agreement and for Dismissal with Prejudice in the case, DUSTIN BINGHAM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff, v. DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DOTERRA UNITED STATES, LLC, and DOTERRA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00707-DBB-DBP. (D. Utah). Mr. Bingham brought a collective action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against doTERRA for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The collective class consisted of fifty individuals who alleged that doTERRA failed to pay the proper overtime premium after accounting for non-discretionary bonuses. The parties disputed (a) whether any class members are entitled to any relief, (b) whether doTERRA's alleged wrongful conduct was willful, (c) whether any class members would be permitted to toll the statute of limitations, and (d) proper methodology for calculating damages. For example, the collective class claimed $11,689.58 for damages and liquidated damages in a supplemental disclosure. DoTERRA disputed this calculation, claiming that it seeks a double recovery for money doTERRA already paid to members of the class before Plaintiff filed this action and miscalculates the damages. Despite these disputes, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The parties stated that the settlement agreement "represents a good-faith compromise to pay those members who did not cash the check doTERRA already tendered or who claim unpaid overtime premiums that exceed what doTERRA already calculated and paid without having to spend significant time, funds, and judicial resources to litigate the numerous factual disputes between the parties." The parties' proposed settlement required doTERRA to pay the following amounts: (1) $518.03 for the Claimants' FLSA claims for damages and liquidated damages. (2)$2,352.00 for costs. (3) $37,148.04 for the Claimants' claim for attorney's fees and costs. Courts follow a three-step inquiry in determining whether to approve an FLSA settlement. First, it determines whether the settlement resolves a bona fide dispute. Second, if the dispute is bona fide, the court assesses whether the settlement is fair and reasonable to the parties involved. And third, it determines whether the proposed settlement contains a reasonable award of attorneys' fees. Judge Barlow finds that the parties have provided sufficient information for the court to conclude that a bona fide dispute exists. The class members allege that dōTERRA miscalculated their overtime rate because it failed to account for their non-discretionary bonuses. They contend that they are owed $11,689.58 in damages and liquidated damages. DōTERRA disputes that the class members are entitled to any relief. Additionally, the parties disagree on (1) whether dōTERRA's alleged conduct was willful, (2) whether any of the class members could toll the statute of limitations, (3) the proper methodology for calculating the damages owed to the class, and (4) what amount of attorneys' fees can be recovered. These disputes demonstrate that the class's potential recovery is in question, and, as a result, there is a bona fide dispute. Next, Judge Barlow finds that the parties have demonstrated that the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. He explains that the Tenth Circuit considers four fairness factors under Rule 23(e) when evaluating a proposed class settlement: whether it was honestly negotiated, whether legal and factual uncertainties exist, whether immediate recovery outweighs the risks of continued litigation, and whether the parties believe the settlement is fair. In this case, all four factors are met. Judge Barlow holds that the parties engaged in arms-length negotiations, acknowledged key legal disputes, weighed the cost and risks of further litigation against a timely resolution, and agreed—based on counsel's input—that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Lastly, Judge Barlow finds that the requested attorneys' fee award is reasonable considering the amount of time reasonably required to perform the work completed by Plaintiffs' counsel and the requested hourly rate. With respect to costs, the parties agreed to the amount in the proposed settlement agreement, and based on the materials provided to the court, this is a reasonable costs amount given the work performed. For the reasons stated, Judge Barlow grants the parties' Stipulated Motion for Approval of the Settlement Agreement and for Dismissal with Prejudice. The case is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nRFsWG DRINK LMNT: Faces Class Suit Over Drink Mix "All Natural" Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that three consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Drink LMNT Inc. Why: The plaintiffs allege LMNT falsely advertises its electrolyte drink mix as "all natural." Where: The LMNT class action lawsuit was filed in Montana federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges that LMNT falsely advertises its electrolyte drink mix as "all natural." Plaintiffs Lisa Vaughn, Barbara Scolaro and Jordan Jarosky filed the class action lawsuit against Drink LMNT on May 23 in Montana federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, LMNT's flavored electrolyte drink mix is falsely advertised as all natural despite containing artificial ingredients. The plaintiffs allege that LMNT's advertising prominently displays phrases like "All Natural Ingredients" and "No Artificial Ingredients," misleading consumers into believing the product is free from synthetic additives. The lawsuit claims the LMNT drink mix class action lawsuit contains maltodextrin, a highly processed ingredient used as a preservative and flavoring agent, which is not listed on the product's packaging. LMNT drink mix contains maltodextrin, lawsuit says The plaintiffs claim they relied on LMNT's advertising when purchasing the drink mix, believing it to be all natural and free from artificial fillers. They say they paid a premium price for the product and would not have purchased it, or would have paid significantly less, if they had known the truth about its ingredients. The lawsuit alleges that LMNT's false advertising practices have injured consumers by misleading them about the product's true nature. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased LMNT's drink mix as well as subclasses of consumers from California, Arkansas and Montana. The lawsuit accuses LMNT of violating consumer protection and false advertising laws and seeks damages and equitable relief for the plaintiffs and the proposed class members. In a growing number of lawsuits targeting "all natural" claims, Knorr is accused of falsely advertising Rice and Pasta Sides products as containing no synthetic, non-natural flavoring and preservatives, while a new lawsuit alleges Coca-Cola's Sprite and Fanta include synthetic ingredients even though claiming "100% Natural Flavors." The plaintiffs are represented by John Heenan of Heenan & Cook PLLC and Terence R. Coates, Jonathan T. Deters and Dylan J. Gould of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC. The LMNT class action lawsuit is Vaughn, et al. v. Drink LMNT Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00052-JTJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Butte Division. [GN] EAP: Gateway, et al. Lose Bid to Continue Certification Hearings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles E. Fleming of the United States District Court for the District of Ohio denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the case captioned as GATEWAY ROYALTY LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. EAP OHIO LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02813 (N.D. Ohio). On May 21, 2024, upon agreement of the parties, the Court set case management dates regarding class certification and dispositive motions. The Order set a hearing on the parties' Daubert motions for June 17, 2025, at 9:00 AM, and another hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, on July 15, 2025, at 9:00 AM. Beyond class certification, the Court's Order set a dispositive motions deadline for "180 days after this Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification." While the parties were still briefing their Daubert motions, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Affirmative Defense of Lack of Pre-Suit Notice. Plaintiffs argue that the pre-suit notice they tendered to Defendants before this case was filed sufficiently put Defendants on notice of Plaintiffs' claims. They also argue that none of the potential class members must provide pre-suit notice in order to join the class. Even if they did have to tender pre-suit notice, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants had constructive notice of putative class member claims, that they waived their pre-suit-notice defense, and that class members are excused from tendering pre-suit notice because such effort would have been futile. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the Daubert and class certification hearings pending a ruling on their dispositive motion. Defendants filed their own motion asking the Court to deny the motion for summary judgment without prejudice, or alternatively, stay briefing on Plaintiffs' motion pending a ruling on class certification. The crux of both matters is whether a decision on Plaintiffs' pre-suit notice arguments would be on the merits, or merely a threshold determination. If the former, the motion for summary judgment violates the rule against one-way intervention and cannot be ruled on until after the Court decides whether to certify the class. If the latter, resolution of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment would be more efficient for all involved rather than proceeding to class certification. The parties agree that the pre-suit notice at issue in this case was a condition precedent to Plaintiffs' right of action regarding its leases and at least some of the putative class leases. They diverge in their interpretations of the legal significance of pre-suit notice. Plaintiffs claim that pre-suit notice is a threshold, justiciability issue. Defendants argue that pre-suit notice goes to the merits of Plaintiffs' case because affirmative defenses always challenge the merits of the complaints against which they are filed. The Court finds a decision on Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment would violate the rule against one-way intervention. Therefore, Defendants' motion to deny Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment without prejudice is granted. Plaintiffs' motion to continue the Daubert and class certification hearings is denied. The Daubert and class certification hearings will proceed as scheduled. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to its refiling in accordance with the Court's case management schedule. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K4lQNc from PacerMonitor.com. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Case Management Order Entered in Hood Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL HOOD, ELIAS NEMIRI, GIDEON BAUER, ELIZABETH GOLEC, and ALEXYS TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00666-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered a case management order: 1. The parties shall exchange initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) on or before June 30, 2025. 2. The parties shall file any motion to add new parties on or before Sept. 18, 2025. The parties shall file any motion to amend the pleadings on or before Sept. 18, 2025. 3. The parties have elected mediation as their preferred form of Alternative Dispute Resolution. A mediation before Jill Sperber will take place on or before Oct. 8, 2025. 4. The parties shall complete all fact discovery, including discovery relevant to class certification and the merits, on or before Dec. 15, 2025. 5. The parties shall complete all expert discovery, including expert depositions and expert discovery relevant to class certification, on or before April 24, 2026, as follows: a. The Plaintiffs shall submit expert disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before Jan. 29, 2026. b. The Defendant shall submit expert disclosures on or before March 23, 2026. c. The Plaintiffs shall submit any rebuttal expert reports on or before April 10, 2026. Educational provides educational support services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fvsQlf at no extra charge.[CC] ELSEVIER INC: N.D. California Refuses to Dismiss Nguyen VPPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned KIMSA NGUYEN, and David Garcia, Plaintiffs v. ELSEVIER INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00825-NC (N.D. Cal.). The lawsuit is a putative class action against Defendant Elsevier, Inc., brought by Plaintiffs Kimsa Nguyen and David Garcia. It arises from Elsevier's allegedly knowing disclosure of the Plaintiffs' sensitive video viewing data to a third-party services provider, Intercom, through tracking tools installed on the Defendant's website Osmosis.org. The Plaintiffs bring a single claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. Section 2710. Elsevier moves to dismiss this claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the Plaintiffs fail to allege Elsevier is a "video tape services provider" and that Elsevier did not disclose consumers' "personally identifiable information" (PII) to other persons. Osmosis is an educational platform founded in 2015 and purchased by Elsevier in 2021. This platform's purpose is to provide high-quality learning resources primarily for medical students, healthcare professionals, and anyone interested in learning health-related topics in an easier to understand format through engaging and visually rich educational content. Osmosis is host to an extensive collection of over 2,000 prerecorded animations that explain health-related topics ranging from medical conditions to pharmacology. Access to Osmosis's video library through paid or free subscriptions requires an individual to register with Osmosis and provide their full name and email address to create an account. As part of Osmosis's customer engagement and support strategy, Elsevier uses the third-party, AI-based customer messaging company, Intercom, to help with customer service, engagement, feedback collection, onboarding and user education, through cookies and scripts that collect user data. The Plaintiffs allege whenever a subscriber watches a video on Osmosis, the website's cookies and scripts send single transmissions containing information, such as 1) the title of the video watched, 2) the subscriber's full name, and 3) the subscriber's email address to Intercom without the user's consent. Plaintiffs Kimsa Nguyen and David Garcia registered for Osmosis by providing their full names and email addresses to Elsevier. Elsevier never gave the Plaintiffs notice of its disclosure of PII to Intercom, nor did they obtain the Plaintiffs' informed, written consent to the disclosure of PII to Intercom. When the Plaintiffs viewed videos on Osmosis, Elsevier used cookies in Osmosis to disclose the Plaintiffs' PII, including their full name, email address, and title of the video they viewed to Intercom. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action Complaint on behalf of themselves and all others, who have been subscribers to Elsevier's Osmosis.org. Elsevier moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6). Elsevier also attached a Request for Judicial Notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 for Exhibits A, B, C, and D to its motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss, and Elsevier submitted a reply in support of its motion. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c). In its motion to dismiss, Elsevier argues it is not a "video tape service provider" within the meaning of the VPPA, and Elsevier's use of cookies transmitting information to Intercom did not disclose PII. The Court disagrees with Elsevier's contentions and finds the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged their claim. Judge Cousins opines that the Plaintiffs plausibly allege Elsevier is a video tape service provider. The Court finds the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged Osmosis's disclosure of information to Intercom contains the identity of specific consumers and demonstrates these specific individuals requested or obtained videos from the website. The issue of whether specific audio visual materials were identified is factually disputed by both parties, making a resolution of this issue unsuitable in a motion to dismiss, Judge Cousins says. For these reasons, the Court denies Elsevier's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Elsevier's answer to the complaint was due on June 23, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated is available at https://tinyurl.com/4a6fkabu from PacerMonitor.com. EMANUEL MEDICAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Harrill Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JUDITH HARRILL, Plaintiff v. EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01672-DC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dena Coggins of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class action complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Turlock, California. She began using the Website in or around March 2021 to "search for information related to health conditions or suspected health conditions, and to schedule treatment for actual or potential medical conditions." The Plaintiff has been a Facebook user since approximately 2006. Tenet is a health system and services platform comprised of three different business units--surgical centers, hospital operations, and healthcare-focused customer service and revenue management. EMC provides hospital services in Turlock, California. EMC provides the only heart attack receiving center between the California cities of Modesto and Fresno. EMC maintains a public-facing Website where prospective and current patients can "search for information related to their health conditions, hospital locations and doctors." On Aug. 10, 2023, Plaintiff Judith Harrill filed a class action complaint against Defendants Emanuel Medical Center ("EMC") and Tenet Health ("Tenet") for allegedly intercepting and transmitting her protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII") to Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta"), formerly known as Facebook, without her knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants transmitted her PHI and PII to Meta via a hidden tracking tool known as Meta Pixel ("Pixel"), that was installed on Defendant EMC's website at https://www.emanuelmedicalcenter.org/ ("Website"). The Plaintiff brings five causes of action against the Defendants: (1) invasion of privacy -- intrusion upon seclusion under California common law; (2) invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, Art. I Section 1; (3) violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"); (4) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); and (5) breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff brings this data privacy action against the Defendants on behalf of herself, a "nationwide class," and a "California subclass." The "nationwide class" is defined as "[a]ll natural persons in the United States whose PHI was collected through [Meta's] Pixel through the Website." The "California subclass" is defined as "[a]ll natural persons residing in California whose PHI was collected through [Meta] Pixel through the Website." The Plaintiff's common law claims for invasion of privacy and breach of implied contract are brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the nationwide class. The Plaintiff's remaining claims, which arise under the California Constitution and California statutes, are brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the California subclass. In their motion, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because it (1) fails to allege facts sufficient to support a cognizable legal theory, (2) is deficient with respect to each claim, and (3) is wholly or partly time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In her opposition to the pending motion, the Plaintiff argues she has alleged facts allowing the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the Defendants are liable for the alleged misconduct. The Court finds the allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint deficient. Judge Coggins opines that the Plaintiff does not identify with specificity what information she provided to the Defendants via her browsing activity on the Website and, thus, what information was subsequently transmitted to Meta. Although the Plaintiff's complaint spans over fifty pages, Judge Coggins notes that only one paragraph is dedicated to detailing her interactions with the Defendants' Website. The Plaintiff vaguely alleges that she used the Website to search for information related to "actual or potential" health conditions. For these reasons, and because all of the Plaintiff's claims are predicated on her theory that the Defendants violated her privacy rights by collecting and transmitting her PHI to Meta via Pixel, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. However, because allegations of additional facts could cure this pleading deficiency as to the Plaintiff's legal theory, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to amend. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's invasion of privacy claims on the grounds that she fails to plead both a reasonable expectation of privacy and a highly offensive intrusion. The Court finds the Defendants arguments to be persuasive. Notably, Judge Coggins says, the Plaintiff alleges in a conclusory manner that she has a reasonable expectation of privacy in her communications with the Defendants on the Website because such communications contain "medical data." However, the Plaintiff's complaint does not allege facts describing any such "medical data." Judge Coggins also points out, among other things, that the Plaintiff's allegations regarding her browsing activity are vague. The Plaintiff does not specifically allege that her searches related to the provision of healthcare, patient status, or otherwise included PHI. Thus, the Court finds the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a reasonable expectation of privacy in her browsing activity on the Website. For the reasons explained in this Order, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss as follows: (a) the Plaintiff's claim for invasion of privacy under California common law is dismissed with leave to amend; (b) the Plaintiff's claim for invasion of privacy under the California Constitution is dismissed with leave to amend; (c) the Plaintiff's CMIA claim is dismissed with leave to amend; (d) the Plaintiff's CIPA claim is dismissed with leave to amend; and (e) the Plaintiff's claim for breach of implied contract is dismissed with leave to amend. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of entry of this order, the Plaintiff will file a first amended complaint, or alternatively, file a notice of her intent not to file a first amended complaint. The Plaintiff is warned that her failure to comply with this order may result in an order dismissing this case due to her failure to prosecute. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2sumrzek from PacerMonitor.com. EMIRATES: Must Submit Opposition Paper in Farah by August 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH et al., v. Emirates et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order granting the following request: 1. The Defendants' papers in opposition to the motion shall be filed by Aug. 18, 2025; and 2. The Plaintiffs' reply papers in further support of the motion shall be filed by Sept. 16, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Er3vMs at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Evan B. Citron, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue New York NY 10017-4030 Telephone: (212) 545-4069 Facsimile: (212) 972-3213 Fax E-mail: evan.citron@jacksonlewis.com ERIE INDEMNITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hourigan Says ------------------------------------------------------------ KAREN HOURIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY and ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00165 (W.D. Pa., June 20, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendants with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information that was impacted in a data breach that the Defendants publicly disclosed in June 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendants failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Erie Indemnity is a provider of insurance policies including auto, life, Medicare supplements and cyber insurance. Erie Insurance is a property and casualty insurance company offering auto, home, business and life insurance through a network of independent insurance agents. The Defendants had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on their affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access, the suit contends.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com EVO BRANDS: Amiel Must File Class Cert Response by July 1 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amiel v. EVO Brands, LLC, et al., Case No. 7:24-cv-07327 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file a response on or before July 1, 2025. On June 16, 2025, the Defendants filed their response to Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause for Class Certification and Default Judgment on liability only. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] EXXON MOBIL: Court Tosses Harris Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Pamela A. Barker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed the plaintiff's class action complaint captioned as JEFFERY HARRIS, -vs- EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiff, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-00414 (N.D. Ohio.). Pro se Plaintiff Jeffery Harris, a resident of Alabama, has filed a Class Action Complaint with jury demand in this case against the Exxon Mobil Corporation, the Chevron Corporation, and BP America, Inc. Plaintiff states in his complaint that he was exposed to "leaded gas fumes" and "Godawful choking exhaust" while in Cleveland from 1980 to 1998 and that he has suffered mental and cognitive health problems as a result. He alleges Defendants are leaded gas titans who knew of the dangers of leaded gas since the '20s but sold it anyway. Seeking over $5 million in damages, and asserting state-law tort claims for negligence, public nuisance, and product liability, he purports to bring this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of a class of "all U.S. residents exposed to leaded gasoline, 1920-1996, with mental or cognitive harm -- like anxiety, depression, bipolar, PTSD, and learning deficits." Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed in accordance with Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B). As an initial matter, a pro se plaintiff may represent only himself in federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1654, which provides that "in all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein." Further, as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff is not entitled to bring a class action because non-attorneys cannot adequately represent the interests of a class. Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a plausible claim and warrants dismissal to the extent Plaintiff purports to bring his complaint as a class action, the Court finds. According to the Court, even to the extent Plaintiff purports to bring the action on his own behalf, his complaint fails to state a plausible claim. Judge Barker holds, "Here, Plaintiff's complaint consists only of speculative and purely conclusory assertions that Defendants sold toxic gas, that he was exposed to such gas, and that this exposure caused him harm. But he does not allege any facts (either in his complaint or any supplemental pleading) pertaining to any specific product or conduct of any Defendant, much less facts permitting a plausible inference that conduct, or toxic product of any Defendant is causally related to his alleged conditions. Even liberally construed, his pleadings do not contain allegations giving rise to plausible product liability, negligence, or public nuisance claims. His allegations amount to 'unadorned, the-defendant unlawfully-harmed-me accusations,' which are insufficient to state a claim for relief in federal court." A copy of the Court's Memorandum of Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bOKXl6 from PacerMonitor.com EYEMED VISION: Tate Seeks Initial Approval of $5MM Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANDRA TATE, BARBARA WHITTOM, and ALEXUS WYNN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EYEMED VISION CARE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00036-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminary approving a proposed class action settlement consisting of a $5,000,000 non-reversionary common fund. The case is a data privacy class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of all individuals "to whom Defendant issued notice of the Data Incident that certain Personal Data was impacted in the Data Incident." The Settlement defines the Class as: "all natural persons who reside in the United States and to whom EyeMed issued notice of the Data Incident that certain Personal Data was impacted in the Data Incident." The Class specifically excludes (i) EyeMed and its officers and directors; (ii) all Persons who opt out of the Class; (iii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of the settlement; and (iv) anyone found guilty by a competent court of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. Under the Settlement, the Defendant agrees to pay a total of $5,000,000 into the non-reversionary Common Fund, which will be used to make payments to Class Members and to pay the costs of Settlement Administration, attorneys' fees and expenses, and Service Awards to Plaintiffs. EyeMed offers a variety of vision plans with different levels of benefits. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Bgeoz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-On-Hudson, NY 10502 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com - and - Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619)238-1811 E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Telephone: (866) 680-1835 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com FABULOUS FLOWERS: General Pretrial Management Entered ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, v. FABULOUS FLOWERS OF TREMONT AVE INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03032-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling or discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. The Plaintiff filed its complaint on April 11, 2025. The Plaintiff served defendant on May 21, 2025, making the Defendant's answer due June 11, 2025. Although that date has come and gone, defendant has not appeared or filed an answer to the complaint. To date, plaintiff has not requested a certificate of default. Accordingly, if defendant has not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint before June 30, 2025, plaintiff shall, on that date, either file a stipulation granting defendant additional time or apply for entry of default. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Fabulous is a floral provider. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VY47SD at no extra charge.[CC] FACEBOOK INC: Lead Plaintiffs Must File Amended Class Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as "In re Facebook, Inc. Securities Litigation", Case No. 5:18-cv-01725-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order granting leave to amend and addressing discovery and scheduling. The Court tentatively lifts the PSLRA's discovery stay. Since Defendants have not had the opportunity to respond to Lead Plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay, they may file a brief in opposition within 10 days of this Order, not to exceed five (5) pages. The Court also adopts the parties' proposed schedule for the anticipated motion to dismiss: -- Lead Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint within 14 days of this Order. -- Defendants shall file their anticipated motion to dismiss within 60 days of the filing of Lead Plaintiffs' amended complaint. -- Any opposition shall be due within 60 days of the filing of Defendants' motion to dismiss. -- Any reply shall be due within fo45 days of the filing of any opposition. On May 30, 2025, Lead Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend. Facebook is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Menlo Park, California. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z0fpPx at no extra charge.[CC] FEDERAL EXPRESS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert. Schedule -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEFFON GILLYARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01666-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulated motion to continue class certification motion schedule. Accordingly, the Parties are attending Mediation on Oct. 30, 2025, with Mediator Judge Paris Kallas (Ret). Therefore, the Parties wish to continue the Class Certification Motion Schedule. The Parties have conferred in good faith. There will be no prejudice to the Parties if this Stipulated Motion is granted. In the interests of justice, this Stipulated Motion should be granted. The Parties stipulate and agree to the following request for relief: 1. The deadlines relating to class certification are stricken. 2. The Parties agree to submit a status report no later than 10 days after the scheduled mediation to update the Court regarding the status of the Parties' negotiations and propose a new schedule for briefing class certification, if necessary. Federal is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZZTEql at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hardeep S. Rekhi, Esq. Gregory A Wolk, Esq. Erika Lane, Esq. REKHI & WOLK, P.S. 529 Warren Ave N., Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: (206) 388-5887 Facsimile: (206) 577-3924 E-mail: hardeep@rekhiwolk.com greg@rekhiwolk.com elane@rekhiwolk.com - and - Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 350-6855 E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com The Defendant is represented by: Gabriella Wagner, Esq. Daniel T. French, Esq. Mitchell S. Bober, Esq. WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON 1000 Second Ave, Suite 2050, Seattle, WA 98104-3629, Telephone: (206) 623-4100 E-mail: Wagner@wscd.com danielfrench@fedex.com Mitchell.bober@fedex.com FEDEX CORPORATION: D'Aquin Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas L. D'Aquin v. Fedex Corporation and ASHLEY [LAST NAME UNKNOWN], in her individual capacity, Case No. 2:25-cv-01246-BWA-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion and certify case as a class action under Rule 23. The Plaintiff alleges that FedEx Corporation has engaged in systemic practices of delivery fraud and racial discrimination, including the fabrication of photographic delivery confirmations and negligent mis-delivery of high-value and sensitive packages. FedEx is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JE8SLP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Thomas L. D'Aquin 2020 Coliseum St. Apt B New Orleans, LA 70130 FLORIDA: Faces Suit Over DMV's Inadequate Scheduling Procedures --------------------------------------------------------------- WSVN reports that a South Florida lawyer is taking action against the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles after, he said, Floridians spent hours waiting at the DMV which opened them up to unsafe conditions. Attorney Michael Pizzi held a news conference Wednesday, June 25, in Miami Lakes where he announced a $10 million class action lawsuit against the Florida DMV and the Miami-Dade and Broward County Tax Collector's Office. "We're here to say 'enough is enough.' We're suing the State of Florida DMV and the Tax Collectors of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties," he said. Pizzi said the long wait times at the DMV have caused headaches for many residents, leaving them to stand in line for hours as some even camped outside overnight to get one of the first appointments. He said residents have been left to deal with unsafe conditions and inadequate scheduling procedures. "It is nothing short of horrific and disgraceful," said Pizzi. The case was filed on behalf of a 17-year-old girl, whose mother said, was forced to sleep outside a Pompano Beach DMV in January to get her driver's license. The teen's mother, Jennifer Sassone, detailed how her daughter and a friend camped outside the DMV for 11 hours. "We thought we would arrive there early, two hours before, and we get there and they laughed. They simply laughed and said 'Oh no, you need to come back at midnight the night before," she said. Sassone said the teen was exposed to distress and even harassment. She showed video of the alleyway where her daughter and the friend slept. "What happened to my daughter is inhumane," she said. Pizzi said appointment scalpers, or people who hold spots in exchange for cash, are largely to blame, but Miami-Dade Tax Collector already cracked down on the scalpers by making it illegal earlier this year. "They're being held to account to every single person they have forced to wait on 10, 12, hour long lines in unsafe conditions, in degrading and deplorable conditions, just because of their incompetence, and they are condoning and permitting corruption," he said. According to Pizzi, once the class action lawsuit is certified by the courts, eventually other people who believe they fell victim to questionable conditions will be able to get on board. "Our hope is when people find out about this, they are going to come forward with their videos and stories," he said. 7News has reached out to the offices of the Miami-Dade and Broward Tax Collectors but have not heard back. [GN] FULFILLMENT LAB: Class Settlement in Sihler Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly, v. THE FULFILLMENT LAB, INC; RICHARD NELSON; BEYOND GLOBAL, INC.; BRIGHTREE HOLDINGS CORP.; BMOR GLOBAL LLC; DAVID FLYNN; RICKIE JOE JAMES, Case No. 3:20-cv-01528-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court directs the Plaintiffs to file the corrected notices on the docket on or before June 30, 2025. Unless the Court states otherwise upon review of the amended notices, notice shall commence on or before Aug. 1, 2025. The Plaintiffs Janet Sihler and Charlene Bavencoff initiated this class action lawsuit on Aug. 6, 2020. It involves an alleged fraudulent scheme in which the Defendants allegedly use fake celebrity and magazine endorsements, as well as misrepresentations about price and limited availability, to induce consumers into purchasing weight-loss pills branded as "Ultra Fast Keto Boost" and "Instant Keto." The Court has previously certified the Class, Class Representatives, and Class Counsel. Janet Sihler and Charlene Bavencoff are the Class Representatives, and Kevin Kneupper and Cyclone Covey of Kneupper & Covey, PC are Class Counsel. The Settlement Class is defined as: "All consumers in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated, were billed for shipments of either three bottles or five bottles of Ultrafast Keto Boost, InstaKeto, or Instant Keto." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) jurists and mediators who are or have presided over the Action, the Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' Counsel, their employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, or any members of their immediate family; (ii) any government entity; (iii) The TFL Parties and any entity in which The TFL Parties have a controlling interest, any of their subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, or any members of their immediate family; and (iv) any persons who timely opt out of the Settlement Class. Fulfillment provides warehousing, fulfillment, e-commerce, shipping, and logistics. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=32jbMO at no extra charge.[CC] FUTURITY FIRST: Class Settlement in Verderame Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONCETTA C. VERDERAME on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FUTURITY FIRST INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01262-KAD (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari Dooley entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, form and manner of settlement notice, plan of allocation, preliminarily certifying a class for settlement purposes, and scheduling fairness hearing: -- Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following "Settlement Class," which consists of all Settlement Class Members who have not excluded themselves from the Settlement Class by submitting a timely request for exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Class Notice and the Preliminary Approval Order. "Settlement Class Members" are defined as: "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII was affected by the Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) the Judge presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and its current or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a request to opt-out prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. -- Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), the Court conditionally appoints the Plaintiff Concetta C. Verderame as Class Representative for the Settlement Class. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court conditionally appoints Marc Edelson, Edelson Lechtzin LLP and Seth Lesser, Klafter Lesser LLP, as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- Analytics, LLC is appointed to serve as the settlement Administrator for the purpose of administering the settlement with reasonable administration costs estimated not to exceed $27,000 pursuant to the terms set forth in the Agreement. -- The Final Approval Hearing is set for Dec. 19, 2025 at 10:00a.m. The Defendant specializes in financial security and retirement needs of seniors, families, and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pO6Gal at no extra charge.[CC] GAVIN NEWSOM: Court Confirms Receiver-Nominee's Salary Rate ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action captioned as RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR (E.D. Cal.), Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California confirmed the annualized salary rates for the Receiver-nominee and her team. On June 6, 2025, the Court withdrew its prior directive to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to hire the Receiver-nominee and Deputy Receiver nominees as employees and ordered instead that effective June 1, 2025, the Receiver-nominee and Deputy Receiver-nominees will be paid monthly an amount equivalent to the pro-rated share of the same annualized salary and benefits the Court set in its April 2, 2025, April 22, 2025, and May 1, 2025 orders, respectively. The Court previously set compensation for the Receiver-nominee and her two Deputies for the four-month period covered by the April 2, 2025 order appointing the Receiver nominee. That compensation meets all the criteria the Court must consider in setting "reasonable" compensation for a receiver. In particular, the Receiver-nominee, her two Deputy-nominees, and her Senior Advisor, are tasked with generating in a very compressed four-month period of time "a comprehensive, detailed plan to finally achieve full and durable compliance with the court-approved and court ordered remedies in this class action, which has been in its remedial phase for almost thirty years. The Court in its discretion approved a salary for the Receiver nominee at an annualized rate of $400,000.00, and for each of her Deputies a salary at an annualized rate of $340,000.00. All of these salary levels are reasonable because the Receiver-nominee and her team are exceptionally well-qualified and serve now an arm of the Court, developing a plan to bring defendants into compliance with their constitutional responsibilities. The Court also ordered defendants to provide the Receiver-nominee and Deputy Receiver nominees benefits comparable to those afforded to the Secretary of CDCR. It found this comparison met the requirements for the reasonableness standard. To assist the Court in establishing the equivalence in payments, the Receiver-nominee has proposed using a calculation based on the average of Secretary Macomber's benefits as a percentage of his salary, and applying the same calculation to the salary rates the Court has approved for the Receiver-nominee and her Deputies. The Court accepts this methodology, which can be applied to information that is publicly available. Total compensation equivalent to what the Court ordered on April 2, 2025 is as follows: Receiver-nominee: $812,784.41 Deputy Receiver-nominee Lothrop: $700,552.47 Deputy Receiver-nominee Toomey: $687,883.14 These annualized amounts translate to the following amounts per month: Receiver-nominee: $67,732.03 Deputy Receiver-nominee Lothrop: $58,379.37 Deputy Receiver-nominee Toomey: $57,323.60 To cover this compensation for the months of June and July 2025, on or before July 5, 2025, and rounding up slightly, defendants must deposit with the Clerk of the Court a total amount of $370,000.00, which amount must be deposited in an interest-bearing account previously opened for this action. Thereafter, the Court will make monthly orders for June and July 2025 at the end of each month, directing the Clerk of the Court to pay the Receiver-nominee and Deputy Receiver-nominees compensation in accordance with this order. Any funds remaining after all court-ordered payments are made will be returned to defendants. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lR8EYA from PacerMonitor.com. GRAND WAILEA: Bolos Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURIE BOLOS, et al., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GRAND WAILEA, A WALDORF ASTORIA RESORT; et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00104-JMS-KJM (D. Haw.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs seek class certification of a class consisting of: "All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants at the Spa located within the Grand Wailea-A Waldorf Astoria Resort as massage therapists, estheticians, nail technicians, fitness instructors, or hair stylists (or any titles performing similar duties) ("Spa Workers") at any time from Feb. 23, 2017 (i.e., six years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this matter) through the final disposition of this action." The Plaintiffs also seek certification of one subclass: (i) Spa workers who were employed as of August 2023 or later, who are entitled to additional damages based on the Defendants' retaliatory conduct toward them. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misclassified them as independent contractors, resulting in the Defendants' systematic violations of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Fair Labor and Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law. Grand is an oceanfront luxury property located on the stunning Wailea Beach. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=exefr8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sandra D. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH LAW OFFICES, LLLC 204 11th Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 312-4913 Facsimile: (808) 490-0490 E-mail: lynchlawhaw@gmail.com - and - Martin K. LaPointe, Esq. Brittany E. Harmssen, Esq. HARMSSEN LAPOINTE 111 N. Market St., Ste. 300 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 422-5458 Facsimile: (408) 332-5858 E-mail: mlapointe@harmssenlaw.com bharmssen@harmssenlaw.com - and - Daniel L. Feder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 391-9476 Facsimile: (415) 391-9432 E-mail: daniel@dfederlaw.com GRAND WAILEA: Conditional or Final FLSA Certification Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURIE BOLOS, et al., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GRAND WAILEA, A WALDORF ASTORIA RESORT; et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00104-JMS-KJM (D. Haw.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting bid for conditional or final FLSA certification. Grand is an oceanfront luxury property located on the stunning Wailea Beach. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Hojap at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sandra D. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH LAW OFFICES, LLLC 204 11th Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 312-4913 Facsimile: (808) 490-0490 E-mail: lynchlawhaw@gmail.com - and - Martin K. LaPointe, Esq. Brittany E. Harmssen, Esq. HARMSSEN LAPOINTE 111 N. Market St., Ste. 300 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 422-5458 Facsimile: (408) 332-5858 E-mail: mlapointe@harmssenlaw.com bharmssen@harmssenlaw.com - and - Daniel L. Feder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 391-9476 Facsimile: (415) 391-9432 E-mail: daniel@dfederlaw.com HARD ROCK: Wins Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended King Class Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CHRISTINA KING, Plaintiff v. HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01119-DC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dena Coggins of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended class action complaint. On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff Christina King filed a complaint initiating this class action against Defendant Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc., for allegedly aiding Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta"), formerly known as Facebook, in intercepting her sensitive and confidential communications via a hidden tracking tool known as Meta Pixel ("Pixel"), that was installed on the Defendant's website at hardrockhotel[destination].com ("Website"). The Defendant is a Florida corporation that operates several hotels throughout the state of California. The Defendant embedded Pixel, a "piece of code" that tracks people and the types of actions they take, on its Website. Pixel is one of many business tools developed by Meta to help website owners and publishers integrate with Meta, understand and measure their products and services, and better reach and serve people who might be interested in their products and services. Pixel functions by tracking events on the Website, such as when a user visits a webpage or clicks on a button to browse offerings. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss that original complaint, which the Court denied as moot because the Plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). That is, on May 20, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the operative first amended class action complaint ("FAC"), bringing two claims against the Defendant: (1) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), California Penal Code Section 631(a); and (2) violation of CIPA, California Penal Code Section 632. The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of herself and a putative class consisting of "all California residents who have a Facebook account and accessed and navigated the Website while in California." The Plaintiff alleges each of her communications, including confidential "guest records," was intercepted by Meta, enabled by the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not consent to Meta's interception of her communications with the Defendant's Website. On July 3, 2024, the Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On Aug. 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an opposition to the pending motion. On Aug. 19, 2024, the Defendant filed its reply thereto. On Oct. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of her opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss. In its motion, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Section 631(a) and Section 632 of CIPA. Judge Coggins finds that the Plaintiff's FAC falls short of alleging that the "contents" of communications, as opposed to "record information," were intercepted. To the extent the Plaintiff alleges Meta intercepted "guest records," including the address, telephone number, email address, or zip code of Website users, Judge Coggins says those allegations are insufficient because that information constitutes "record information." Although descriptive URLs that reveal specific information about a user's queries may reflect the "contents" of communications under CIPA, Judge Coggins opines that the Plaintiff's FAC is devoid of any allegation describing her search queries, if any. Notably, the FAC provides examples of the types of "full-string URLs" allegedly intercepted by Meta, but the Plaintiff does not allege she conducted the searches or visited the webpages provided in the examples. Thus, the Plaintiff has not alleged that the "contents" of her communications were intercepted. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim brought under Section 631(a) of CIPA. Because alleging additional facts could cure this pleading deficiency, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to amend this claim. In its motion, the Defendant also argues the Plaintiff has failed to allege that her communications were "confidential" for purposes of a Section 632 claim. Regardless of whether "guest records" under California Civil Code Section 53.5(a) qualify as "confidential" communications under Section 632 of CIPA, Judge Coggins finds the Plaintiff has not alleged that her communications with the Defendant's Website constitute guest records. In light of the Plaintiff's bare allegations regarding her interactions with the Defendant's Website, Judge Coggins opines that a reasonable inference cannot be drawn that the Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communications Meta intercepted. Thus, the Plaintiff has not pled that her communications were "confidential" as required for a claim under Section 632. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim under Section 632 of CIPA. Because alleging additional facts could cure this pleading deficiency, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to amend this claim, as well. For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's request for judicial notice. The Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of entry of this Order, the Plaintiff will file a second amended complaint, or alternatively, file a notice of her intent not to file a second amended complaint. The Plaintiff is warned that her failure to comply with this Order may result in an order dismissing this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2wv5nvmw from PacerMonitor.com. HARLEM GROUP: General Pretrial Management Entered in Carcamo Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCELO CARCAMO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et al., v. HARLEM GROUP PR CORP. doing business as BISTRO, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01397-ALC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. No later than June 20, 2025, the parties shall submit a joint status letter, updating the Court as to the outcome of mediation. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qj5SXY at no extra charge.[CC] HD LIQUORS: Court Tosses Dorsey Discrimination Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Randolph D. Moss of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed without prejudice the the pro se complaint captioned as MICHAEL B. DORSEY, JR., Plaintiff, v. HD LIQUORS, Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-01189-UNA (D.D.C.). The plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, brings a putative class action suit, against a business entity operating a liquor store in the District of Columbia, He alleges that Defendant discriminates against homeless persons and African Americans seeking to patronize its business. Defendant allegedly violated the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, and an implied agreement to treat all paying customers fairly and respectfully, and intentionally caused Plaintiff emotional distress. Plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment, compensatory damages, and an apology from Defendant, among other relief. To the extent Plaintiff's claims arise solely under District of Columbia law, the Court lacks both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff's demand for damages exceeds the $75,000 threshold, he fails to allege facts sufficient to establish diversity. Rather, it appears that both parties reside or conduct business in the District of Columbia. Even if Plaintiff alleged a sufficient basis to invoke the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff could prosecute only his own claims. Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to state an individual, federal law claim for discrimination, even if the Court were to construe the complaint as raising such a claim. Because none of Plaintiff's factual allegations supports a plausible inference that Defendants' employee's conduct was based on Plaintiff's race, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint would fail to state a claim under Title II. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xdRrg0 from PacerMonitor.com. HIMS & HERS: Berger Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Berger Montague, a nationally recognized securities litigation firm, is investigating potential claims on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Hims & Hers Health, Inc. ("Hims & Hers" or the "Company") (NYSE: HIMS). Hims & Hers headquartered in San Francisco, California, is a telehealth company that offers prescription treatments for weight loss, sexual health, mental health, and dermatology. Recently, the company expanded into the GLP-1 medication market, a class of drugs used to treat obesity and type 2 diabetes, including semaglutide, the active ingredient in Wegovy and Ozempic, developed by Novo Nordisk. On June 23, 2025, Novo Nordisk announced the termination of its partnership with Hims & Hers, alleging that the company engaged in deceptive marketing and sold unapproved compounded versions of semaglutide. Following the announcement, shares of Hims & Hers declined by over 26% in intraday trading, reflecting investor concerns regarding regulatory compliance and reputational risks. Berger Montague's investigation focuses on whether Hims & Hers and certain officers and directors made materially false or misleading statements or omitted material information regarding the nature and regulatory status of its GLP-1 offerings, the associated risks, and the partnership with Novo Nordisk. If you are a Hims & Hers investor and would like to learn more about our investigation, CLICK HERE or please contact Berger Montague: Andrew Abramowitz at aabramowitz@bm.net or (215) 875-3015, or Peter Hamner at phamner@bm.net. About Berger Montague Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Delaware, Washington, D.C., San Diego, San Francisco and Chicago, has been a pioneer in securities class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague has represented individual and institutional investors for over five decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the United States. For more information or to discuss your rights, please contact: Andrew Abramowitz, Esq. Berger Montague (215) 875-3015 aabramowitz@bm.net - and - Peter Hamner, Esq. Berger Montague PC phamner@bm.net [GN] HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Bush Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, transfers the lawsuit entitled JOHNNY M. BUSH, JR., Plaintiff v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04114-DRC-EPD (S.D. Ohio), to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Eastern Division The matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC's ("HDMA") Motion to Transfer Venue, Plaintiff Johnny M. Bush, Jr.'s opposition and HDMA's reply. Through its motion, HDMA seeks to transfer the putative class action raising claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). By Order dated May 6, 2025, the Court, noting the parties' failure to meaningfully address the threshold question of whether venue was proper in that district under the special venue provision of Title VII, ordered simultaneous supplemental briefing. Both parties filed their supplemental briefs as ordered on May 20, 2025. The Plaintiff is an African American, current employee of HDMA. HDMA is a corporation doing business in the State of Alabama. Prior to April 1, 2021, the Honda facility in Lincoln, Alabama, was a separate independent entity incorporated as Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC ("HMA"), and operated with its own organizational structure, policies, procedures, and employees. HMA initially hired the Plaintiff as an Associate Administrator in the Production Materials Control Department on April 29, 2002. On April 1, 2021, Honda merged all of its automobile manufacturing facilities in the United States related to frame, engine, transmission, and related engineering and purchasing operations into a single multi-state entity formed and known as HDMA. Nine separate manufacturing facilities were merged into HDMA as a single operation and corporate entity, including the Lincoln, Alabama plant where the Plaintiff, an Alabama resident, has worked and currently performs his job duties. The Plaintiff currently holds the position of Regional Packing Supplier Account Manager as Group Lead at Career Level 5 in HDMA's Fleet Maintenance Unit, which is part of the Supply Chain Packaging Department. Within that position, his current title is Staff Administrator ("SA"). Unlike the Plaintiff, all Caucasian and non-African American Group Leads in the Packaging Fleet Maintenance Unit hold that same position as a Staff Engineer ("SE"). The Staff Engineers are paid at a higher rate than the Plaintiff as a Staff Administrator. The Plaintiff brings claims for disparate impact and disparate treatment, both on behalf of himself and a putative class, which he defines as exempt African American employees, associates and contractors who hold, perform or seek supervisory, managerial, administrative or other exempt positions, or who have held, performed or sought such exempt positions or duties during the applicable limitations period. With respect to his disparate impact claim, the Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that HDMA's promotion selection process prevents African Americans from learning about or competing for job opportunities before they are filled by Caucasians or other non-African Americans. As for his disparate treatment claim, as it relates to the Plaintiff individually, he asserts that he made known his interest in being considered for and promoted to positions filled by Caucasians or other non-African Americans, that he was qualified for those positions, and that he was not selected or promoted to such positions even though HDMA continued to seek candidates with his same or similar general qualifications. Given the Plaintiff's approach, the Court finds that the current record is sufficient to establish that the Northern District of Alabama also is a proper venue for the filing of the Plaintiff's action. Although not directly on point, Judge Deavers points out that analyses from other courts lend support for this conclusion and undermine the Plaintiff's attempt to separate his primary or potential primary workplace from the Northern District of Alabama. Certainly, Judge Deavers adds, among other things, the Northern District of Alabama, as the Plaintiff's long-time place of employment and the location of an HDMA facility, can be considered a judicial district concerned with discrimination as alleged by the Plaintiff. The Court concludes, in an exercise of its discretion, that the interests of justice support the transfer of this case to the Northern District of Alabama. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue. This case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Eastern Division. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/38eanwj2 from PacerMonitor.com. HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00896-FDW-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an approximately 30-day extension of the class certification deadline, while leaving other deadlines in place. Event Proposed New Deadline Class Certification Hearing: Oct. 8–12, 2025 Expert Reports: Plaintiff: Aug. 29, 2025 (same) Defendant: Sept. 26, 2025 (same) Rebuttal: Oct. 24, 2025 (same) Discovery Completion: Nov. 7, 2025 (same) ADR: Oct. 23, 2025 (same) Pretrial Submissions: Feb. 9, 2026 (same) Trial Setting: March 2–13, 2026 (same) On June 6, 2025, the parties jointly reported to the Court that after two, in-person mediations and numerous follow up communications with JAMS mediator the Honorable Gerald E Judge Rosen (ret. E.D. Mich.), they had executed a Memorandum of Understanding/Term Sheet setting out the principal essential and material terms of a class settlement, and had begun the process of preparing a long-form settlement, notice materials, and contacting potential class settlement administrators. Husqvarna produces outdoor power products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SPw3jV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - John Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer W. Winkler, Esq. Robert L. Wise, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 301 S. College Street, 23rd Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 417-3000 Facsimile: (704) 377-4814 E-mail: Jennifer.Winkler@nelsonmullins.com Robert.Wise@nelsonmullins.com HWAREH.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Zarif Due Dec. 26 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAHNAZ ZARIF, et al., v. HWAREH.COM, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00565-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Butcher entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline: 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings must be filed on or before July 21, 2025. 2. A telephonic Status Conference to discuss the status of the case and discovery will be held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher on Aug. 8, 2025, at 10:30 AM. 3. Merit and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all discovery for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be completed on or before Nov. 21, 2025. "Completed" means discovery must be initiated with sufficient period so that it will be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. A motion for class certification must be filed no later than Dec. 26, 2025. 5. Counsel must contact Judge Butcher's chambers at 619-446-3704 regarding setting all remaining case management dates within three (3) days of the Court's ruling on the motion for class certification. The Defendant is a technology company with a focus on healthcare e-commerce. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Us35D at no extra charge.[CC] IMMUNITYBIO INC: $2.98MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Co-Lead Counsel --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salzman v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al. (IMMUNITYBIO, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-01216-GPC-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order: (1) granting motion for final approval of the class action settlement; and (2) granting motion for award of attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses and award to LPlaintiff. 1. The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order to certify, for purposes of the Settlement only, the Action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of: "All persons who purchased or acquired, ImmunityBio, Inc. securities from March 10, 2021 to May 10, 2023, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were damaged thereby, except those expressly excluded therefrom." Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants; members of the immediate families of the Defendants; the subsidiaries and affiliates of any Defendants; any Person or entity who is a partner, executive officer, director or controlling person of any of the Defendants; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded person. 2. Co-Lead Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,987,985 and expenses in the amount of $180,049.92, plus interest earned thereon, for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid, such amounts to be paid from the Settlement Fund upon entry of this Order and Final Judgment. 3. Lead Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $10,000, as reasonable costs and expenses directly relating to the representation of the Settlement Class. On June 30, 2023, Zachary Salzman initiated this Action by filing a securities class action complaint against Defendants in this Court. On August 29, 2023, Patel filed a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff. On September 27, 2023, the Court appointed Patel as Lead Plaintiff and appointed Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, LLC as Co-Lead Counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. ImmunityBio is a vertically integrated biotechnology company developing next-generation therapies and vaccines that bolster the natural immune system. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZrYs18 at no extra charge.[CC] INGO MONEY: Class Settlement in Cantu Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennie Corona-Cantu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ingo Money, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03023-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Mark Cohen entered an order granting: -- the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement and certification of settlement class, and -- the Plaintiff's motion for an award of reasonable Atty's Fees, litigation expenses, and service award. Ingo Money offers cash paychecks, personal checks, business checks, money orders and more, anytime, anywhere. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TXlrVi at no extra charge.[CC] INT'L PAPER: Bid to Dismiss Rojas Suit Tossed With Leave to Refile ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Stan Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismisses as moot, and with leave to refile, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled LUIS ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03065-SAB (E.D. Wash.). The Plaintiff and the Class members are current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiff is a former employee, who worked in the Defendant's Yakima location as a lift truck driver. The Defendant is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. The Defendant is a global company that specializes in providing sustainable packaging products and operates several facilities in the state of Washington. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in a systematic scheme of wage and hour abuses against its Washington hourly-paid or non-exempt employees. These abuses include failing to provide employees with the rest breaks to which they are entitled; failing to provide employees with the meal breaks to which they are entitled; failing to pay all minimum wages to employees for all hours worked; and failing to pay all overtime wages to employees when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. Before the Court are the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint or for More Definite Statement, and the Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Hearing on Defendant's FRCP 12 Motions. The motions were considered without oral argument. The Defendant removed this matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on May 15, 2025, and filed its Motion to Dismiss the same day. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on June 5, 2025. As such, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint is dismissed as moot and with leave to refile. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint or for More Definite Statement is dismissed as moot and with leave to refile. The Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Hearing on Defendant's FRCP 12 Motions is dismissed as moot. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yftx8wdj from PacerMonitor.com. IOWA STUDENT: Filing for Class Certification in Mason Due Oct. 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANTZEN MASON, LILIANA ZAMBRANO, AMANDA MCDONALD, CASSANDRA MARIE GIBSON, AND JEFFERY CARSTENSEN, v. IOWA STUDENT LOAN LIQUIDITY CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-00515-RGE-WPK (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge William Kelly entered a revised scheduling and trial setting order: 1. A jury trial shall begin on April 12, 2027, at 9:00 AM before United States District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger at the United States Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa. Trial is estimated to take 14 days. 2. A final pretrial conference shall be held on March 10, 2027 at 10:00 AM at the United States Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa, before Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger. 3. The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification by Oct. 24, 2025. 4. The Defendant shall file a response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by Nov. 21, 2025. 5. The Plaintiff shall file a reply in support of their motion for class certification by Dec. 12, 2025. 6. Discovery shall be completed by Aug. 7, 2026. 7. Dispositive motions shall be filed by Sept. 8, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jtdJRK at no extra charge.[CC] JEWISH VOICE: Parties Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL FAORO, v. JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00289-ABJ (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to stay briefing on class certification and for entry of agreed briefing schedule on motions to dismiss. Accordingly, Defendant JVP and Plaintiff agree that staying briefing on the issue of class certification until after this Court resolves those motions will serve the interests of both the parties and the Court in conserving resources and promoting judicial economy. In addition, the parties conferred on a briefing schedule for the pending motions to dismiss and agreed on the following proposed briefing schedule: a. Plaintiff's response due August 14, 2025; and b. Defendants' replies due September 3, 2025. The Plaintiff also requests that Plaintiff be permitted to file a single omnibus opposition brief of up to 70 pages in response to all Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Defendant JVP does not oppose Plaintiff's request. The Defendant JVP has conferred with counsel for Defendants Dissenters, Palestinian Youth Movement, WESPAC Foundation, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Brian Becker, and Hannah Shraim (all the Defendants who have currently been served and appeared in this case), all of whom agree with the relief sought and join in the request. The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on June 9, 2025. On June 16, 2025, the Defendant JVP filed its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. EyeMed offers a variety of vision plans with different levels of benefits. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TwM1cy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna St. John, Esq. Neville S. Hedley, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (917) 327-2392 E-mail: anna.stjohn@hlli.org ned.hedley@hlli.org The Defendants are represented by: Nora Snyder, Esq. Brad J. Thomson, Esq. PEOPLE'S LAW OFFICE 1180 N. Milwaukee Avenue Chicago, IL 60642 Telephone: (773) 235-0070 E-mail: norasnyder@peopleslawoffice.com brad@peopleslawoffice.com - and - Hanna Chandoo, Esq. Dan Stormer, Esq. Bina Ahmad, Esq. HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI, LLP 128 N Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 E-mail: hchandoo@hadsellstormer.com dstormer@hadsellstormer.com bahmad@hadsellstormer.com - and - Lynne Bernabei, Esq. Alan R. Kabat, Esq. BERNABEI & KABAT, PLLC 1400 – 16th Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202)745-1942 E-mail: bernabei@bernabeipllc.com kabat@bernabeipllc.com KEVIN MAHONEY: Class Scheduling Order Entered in Bay Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAY STREET ADVISORS, LLC, v. KEVIN P. MAHONEY, Case No. 1:24-cv-09139-RA-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered class scheduling order as follows: Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R2O4Tv at no extra charge.[CC] KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Partial OK of Class Cert Bid Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNIE HAMILTON, ANTHONY KILLION, KRISTOPHER KACZANOWSKI, LEROY COKER, DARRELL BROWN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, and the general public, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona Knight Transportation Inc.; KNIGHT PORT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order -- advancing the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's June 3, 2025 Order -- granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, filed on June 16, 2025. On June 25, 2025, Counsel for Defendants advised Plaintiffs’ counsel via email that Defendants do not oppose this ex parte application. Knight provides multiple truckload services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vPL0KY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 2001 Union Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com jglugoski@righettilaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. John Ellis, Esq. Luis Arias, Esq. Babak Yousefzadeh, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com larias@sheppardmullin.com BYousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com KONICA MINOLTA: Yordanov's Expert Report Deemed Unpermitted, Void ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CEZUS, and other similarly situated employees, v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00792-JXN-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Leda Dunn Wettre entered an order that Dr. Yordanov's May 12, 2025, reply expert report is deemed unpermitted and void ab initio, unless and until the plaintiff can establish that supplementation of its expert's opinion was required under Rule 26(e). The Court further entered an order that the parties shall proceed to brief the motion for class certification in accordance with the schedule entered on June 2, 2025. The plaintiff suggests that because the Court allowed Dr. Killingsworth to serve a rebuttal report, its substitute expert Dr. Yordanov similarly may do so. This argument is disingenuous at best, as the Court gave prior authorization for Dr. Killingsworth’s rebuttal report in order to cure alleged prejudice arising from deficiencies in defendants’ disclosures. There is no argument that such circumstances are present this time around. The Plaintiff served the affirmative expert report of Dr. Mark Killingsworth on May 22, 2023, and the defendant served a responsive expert report authored by Dr. Murray Simpson on Aug. 9, 2023. Konica offers cloud, IT, managed print and video solution services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fqfw6C at no extra charge.[CC] KPMG LLP: N.D. California Dismisses Kusen Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled ALEXANDRA KUSEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. JAMES H. HERBERT, II, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02940-AMO (N.D. Cal.). The lawsuit is a putative securities class action regarding statements made by officers and the auditor for a now-defunct bank. The motions to dismiss from Defendants James H. Herbert, II, Neal Holland, Michael J. Roffler, Michael D. Selfridge, Olga Tsokova ("Individual Defendants"; KPMG, LLP; and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") were heard before the Court on April 17, 2025. Lead Plaintiff Alecta Tjanstepension Omsesidigt is a Swedish pension fund that purchased FRB stock during the relevant period. Alecta was appointed Lead Plaintiff by the Court on Nov. 24, 2023. Additional named Plaintiff Neil Fairman is an investor, who purchased FRB stock during the relevant period. Non-party First Republic Bank ("FRB") was a San Francisco-based bank that primarily served individuals, with a particular focus on residential mortgage loans. The Individual Defendants were FRB officers and/or directors at various times during the relevant period. Defendant KPMG LLP ("KPMG") was FRB's auditor during the relevant period. According to the Plaintiffs, at the end of 2021, 75% of FRB's deposits were uninsured, roughly twice the median of its peers. The Individual Defendants repeatedly assured investors that the Bank's deposit growth was driven by its "service-focused culture" and that, as a result, FRB's deposit base was "safe," "stable," and "well-diversified." Following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank on March 10, 2023, depositors withdrew approximately $25 billion, or roughly 16.8% of FRB's total deposits, on a single day. The Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants failed to report these massive deposit outflows; instead, they issued a press release assuring that FRB's deposit base was still "strong and very-well diversified" and reiterating the "safety and stability" of FRB's liquidity positions. On May 1, 2023, following several public disclosures and decreases in stock price, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation closed FRB and appointed the FDIC as Receiver pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. Section 1821(c)(5). The FDIC accepted appointment as Receiver for First Republic on the same date. By operation of law, the FDIC-R succeeded to "all rights, titles, powers, and privileges" of First Republic, and of any stockholder, member, accountholder, depositor, officer, or director of First Republic with respect to First Republic and the assets of First Republic. As part of the mandatory Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA") claims process, the FDIC-R established Sept. 5, 2023, as First Republic's "Claims Bar Date," the deadline for filing any administrative claims. The FDIC-R provided notice of the Claims Bar Date to creditors and depositors of First Republic as required by law. The securities lawsuit was filed by Alexandra Kusen on June 14, 2023, after FRB failed and the FDIC's appointment as receiver. Kusen's original complaint sought relief on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders against certain former directors and officers of First Republic and First Republic's outside auditor, KPMG, LLP, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The claims in Kusen's original complaint relate to alleged false statements and misrepresentations by the Bank, by the director and officer defendants in their roles as directors and officers of the Bank, and by KPMG concerning the Bank's false statements and misrepresentations. Kusen named neither the Bank nor the FDIC-R in the Complaint, but Kusen's claims are based upon alleged false or misleading statements or omissions by the Bank, the Bank's directors and officers, and KPMG in the Bank's press releases, the Bank's public securities filings, the Bank's earnings calls, and the Bank's public investor events. Kusen's claims are also based on allegedly false or misleading statements by FRB directors and officers at public conferences concerning the Bank, the Bank's assets, and the Bank's financial condition. Kusen's claim against KPMG is likewise premised upon statements made in the Bank's public securities filings that concerned the Bank's allegedly false or misleading statements about its financial condition and its assets. On Sept. 5, 2023, after this lawsuit was filed, the Lead Plaintiff, Alecta, filed an individual administrative claim against FRB arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On the same date, Alecta filed with the FDIC-R a second administrative claim against FRB on behalf of a putative class of investors in FRB and described the claim as arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Alecta's second administrative claim on behalf of a putative class was substantively identical to its individual claim. On Sept. 7, 2023, the FDIC-R administratively closed Alecta's second administrative claim on behalf of a purported class as duplicative of its first-filed, individual administrative claim. On March 1, 2024, the FDIC-R issued a notice of disallowance of Alecta's individual administrative claim. Neither Kusen nor Plaintiff Neil Fairman submitted any administrative claim to the FDIC-R. On Feb. 13, 2024, before Alecta's administrative claim was disallowed, Alecta filed an Amended Complaint in this case ("FAC"). The Amended Complaint, on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders against certain former directors and officers of First Republic and First Republic's outside auditor, KPMG, alleges violations of federal securities laws. Like Kusen's original Complaint, the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint relate to alleged false statements and misrepresentations by the Bank and by the Defendants in their roles as directors and officers of the Bank, and by KPMG concerning FRB's false statements and misrepresentations. All Defendants move for dismissal, but the Court focuses here on FDIC's motion because it disposes of the case. FDIC moves to dismiss on two grounds: (1) Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the Plaintiffs failed to administratively exhaust their claims with the FDIC-R as required by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"); and (2) Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on the basis that the Plaintiffs' securities law claims are claims of stockholders of FRB, claims which now belong to FDIC-R as the real-party-in-interest and cannot be prosecuted by these Plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a). Judge Martinez-Olguin notes that Kusen filed this case on June 14, 2023, after the appointment of the FDIC-R. Because Kusen's claims in the original complaint and the Plaintiffs' claims in the FAC all relate to acts or omissions of FRB, Kusen and the other Plaintiffs were required to exhaust their claims administratively with the FDIC-R before seeking judicial review. Kusen never filed any administrative claim with the FDIC-R, so she did not exhaust administrative remedies with the FDIC-R prior to filing suit. Accordingly, Judge Martinez-Olguin holds, the Court lacked jurisdiction over this lawsuit at the time it was filed. Even if the Court were to look to the Alecta's FAC to assess subject matter jurisdiction, the result would not change because the administrative process had not been exhausted. Alecta filed its amended complaint on Feb. 13, 2024, before the FDIC-R disallowed its administrative claim on March 1, 2024. The Court, therefore, also lacks jurisdiction over Alecta's claims. Plaintiff Fairman likewise cannot overcome the Court's lack of jurisdiction because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies with the FDIC-R. Because none of the Plaintiffs administratively exhausted their claims prior to filing this lawsuit, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims, and the Court, therefore, grants FDIC's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Resisting the jurisdictional hurdle of administrative exhaustion, the Plaintiffs assert that FIRREA's Claims Process conflicts with the PSLRA and the Seventh Amendment. Judge Martinez-Olguin holds that the Plaintiffs' arguments in this regard each fail. Quite simply, Judge Martinez-Olguin opines, no member of a purported class may exhaust the FIRREA claims process on behalf of another member of that purported class without actual authority to act on behalf of those other class members. For these reasons, the Court grants FDIC's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court does not reach the remaining motions to dismiss and terminates them as moot. The action is dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk is instructed to close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3u2ba7ks from PacerMonitor.com. KRAFT HEINZ: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid to Nov. 21 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAFAEL PASZEK, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY dba KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY (LLC), a Pennsylvania limited liability company; PRIMAL NUTRITION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01813-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation to continue the Plaintiff's class certification deadline to Nov. 21, 2025. On Aug. 25, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, alleging 10 causes of action. On July 1, 2023, the Court issued its Order granting the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss and dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action. On March 6, 2025, the Court set oral argument on the Motion for Summary Judgment for April 16, 2025. Kraft operates as a food and beverage company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RIg3uc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Drexler, Esq. Jonathan Lee, Esq. Robert Myong, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Robert.drexler@capstonelawyers.com Jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Myong@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Vi N. Applen, Esq. J. Nicholas Marfori, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: aaron.cole@ogletree.com vi.applen@ogletree.com nicholas.marfori@ogletree.com KRISPY KREME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Guiang Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TRACY GUIANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and ALLISON BLANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00499 (M.D.N.C., June 20, 2025) is a class action on behalf of themselves, and all other individuals similarly situated against Krispy Kreme for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and private health information of Plaintiffs and Class Members. In the regular course of its business, Krispy Kreme required to maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their customers' and employees' PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. On November 29, 2024, Krispy Kreme became aware that an unauthorized third party gained access to Krispy Kreme's information technology systems and accessed information containing PII/PHI of Krispy Kreme's customers and employees. Krispy Kreme owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. Krispy Kreme breached that duty by, among other things, failing to, or contracting with companies that failed to, implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect patients' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. Kripsy Kreme obtains its clients' and employees' sensitive PII/PHI and failed to protect it. Kripsy Kreme had an obligation to secure customers' and employees' PII/PHI by implementing reasonable and appropriate data security safeguards. As a result of Krispy Kreme's failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' unencrypted, non-redacted PII/PHI has been exposed to unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Krispy Kreme is an American multinational doughnut and coffeehouse company incorporated in the State of North Carolina and maintains its corporate offices and principal place of business in Winston-salem, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS Grossman LLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: sharris@milberg.com KRISTI NOEM: Must File Class Cert Opposition by July 25 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNA GUTIERREZ, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01766 (D.D.C., Filed June 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan entered an order on motion for extension of time to file response/reply set/reset deadlines: The Defendants shall file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by July 25, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply by Aug. 8, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.[CC] LAKEVIEW LOAN: Morrill Bid to File Class Reply Under Seal Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morrill v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20955 (S.D. Fla., Filed March 29, 2022), the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to File Reply to Motion for Class Certification Under Seal. The Plaintiffs may file their Reply under seal. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Lakeview is a mater servicer of residential mortgage loans, owns mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) and originates residential mortgage loans.[CC] LITE STAR: Court Vacates Pending Dates in Chea Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINNA CHEA, v. LITE STAR ESOP COMMITTEE, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00647-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order vacating pending dates and setting date to file motions for preliminary approval of class settlement and class certification for settlement purposes. On June 10, 2025, the parties filed a notice of settlement, informing the Court that they have reached a settlement in principle to resolve this matter. The parties proffer that they have agreed to finalize a comprehensive settlement agreement within 45 days of Defendants providing necessary class data to the Plaintiff's counsel. Accordingly, any motions for preliminary settlement approval and class certification for settlement purposes shall be filed within sixty (60) days of the date of entry of this order. Any request for an extension of time shall be filed prior to the deadline and must be supported by good cause. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SebVM4 at no extra charge.[CC] LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Cuevas Due Sept. 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the case schedule as follows. 1. Motion for Class Certification: a. Motion due by Sept. 2, 2025. b. Responses due by Sept. 30, 2025. c. Replies due by Oct. 21, 2025. d. Motion for Class Certification Hearing set for Dec. 30, 2025. The Parties have been engaging in extensive discovery meet and confer efforts over the course of the litigation regarding, among other things, search terms which Defendant has been running and will continue to run to reasonably search for corporate documents and eDiscovery relating to the Plaintiff's claims. The eDiscovery efforts span beyond this federal court case. The Plaintiff contends that any order relating to the scope of eDiscovery in this action will have no binding effect on Plaintiff's eDiscovery requested in the Cuevas PAGA Action. On June 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking to continue the June 16, 2025 deadline to file his motion for class certification. On June 11, 2025, the Court granted the Parties' request to modify the class certification deadline and temporarily stay the Plaintiff's ex parte application pending a further detailed stipulation. Little is an American multinational chain of pizza restaurants. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TwiaCN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com - and - Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. Lindsay E. Hutner, Esq. Priya E. Singh, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12830 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 848-2523 E-mail: Ellen.Bronchetti@gtlaw.com Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com Priya.Singh@gtlaw.com LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, a foreign limited liability co., and LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLLC d/b/a LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLC, a foreign limited liability co., Case No. 4:24-cv-00205-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying case as a Class Action on behalf of Florida borrowers to whom Defendants LVNV Funding, LLC and Lloyd & McDaniel, PLLC have violated their rights under federal law. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and proposed class (the "MSD Class") defined as follows: "All Florida residents who (1) were sued by LVNV, (2) in which suit LVNV or its counsel submitted a verified filing similar to the Verified MSD, (3) from the beginning of the limitations period to the present." The relevant class periods are March 27, 2024, through the date of Notice for the Class. This action meets all requirements for class certification in Rule 23. LVNV is in the debt collection business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Am9oqN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Aaron M. Swift, Esq. SWIFT LAW PLLC 11300 4th Street N., Ste. 260 St. Petersburg, FL 33716 Telephone: (727) 490-9919 Facsimile: (727) 255-5332 E-mail: aswift@swift-law.com - and - G. Tyler Bannon, Esq. BANNON LAW GROUP 1901 Dr. M.L. King Jr. Street N. St. Petersburg, FL 33704 Telephone: (727) 896-4455 Facsimile: (727) 895-1312 E-mail: tyler@rbannonlaw.com jessica@rbannonlaw.com MARDONE INC: Approval of Collective Settlement Deal Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELA GUILLEN, LAURA GUILLEN, NOELIA ALVAREZ VASQUEZ, and NORMA ZAMORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARDONE, INC., t/a J&B CLEANING SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01983-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: -- approving the collective-action settlement agreement, -- directing Notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and -- dismissing the instant lawsuit with prejudice. J&B offers high quality commercial cleaning services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DZMu4A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Hanna, Esq. Arlus J. Stephens, Esq. MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC 1401 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 223-2620 E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com astephens@murphypllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Eleanor Miller, Esq. Martin Heller, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (301) 880-5030 E-mail: emiller@fisherphillips.com mheller@fisherphillips.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Camas Must File Class Cert Reply by July 11 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ESTEBAN CAMAS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03308-RMR-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn A. Starnella entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time and the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for enlargement of page limit: -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Reply in support of his motion for class certification is extended to July 11, 2025. -- The page limitation on the Plaintiff's Reply in support of his motion for class certification is increased from 10 to 20 pages. Marriott is a hospitality service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SWhSOq at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3010: Google Seeks to File Class Cert Memo Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-3010 (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to file under seal memoranda of law relating to class certification, and motions to exclude expert testimony, and exhibits to the declaration of Justina K. Sessions. The Defendants include Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., And Youtube, LLC's. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LvvJA7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Justina K. Sessions, Esq. Eric Mahr, Esq. Andrew J. Ewalt, Esq. FRESHFIELDS US LLP 855 Main Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 618-9250 E-mail: justina.sessions@freshfields.com eric.mahr@freshfields.com andrew.ewalt@freshfields.com - and - Craig M. Reiser, Esq. Bradley D. Justus, Esq. AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP 630 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 728-2200 E-mail: creiser@axinn.com bjustus@axinn.com MDL 3111: Settlement in Savings Account Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation, Case No. 1:24-md-03111 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order 1. The Court provisionally certifies, for purposes of the settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons or entities who maintained a Capital One 360 Savings account at any time during the class period (i.e., from Sept. 18, 2019, through and including the date this Order is entered), including joint and co-holders of 360 Savings accounts, as reflected in the class list to be generated by Capital One." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Capital One, any entity in which Capital One has a controlling interest, and Capital One's officers, directors, legal representatives. successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over the action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court conditionally appoints Chet B. Waldman and his law firm Wolf Popper LLP as class counsel and The Kaplan Law Firm as local counsel, and designates Plaintiffs in the action, i.e., Dr. Scott C. Savett, Jay Sim, Amber Terrell, Angela Uherbelau, Gwendolyn Wright, Elizabeth Zawacki, Sheryl Barnes, Alessandra Bellantoni, Ayal Brenner, Anthony Guest, Samuel Hans, Ronald Hopkins, Michael Krause, Steve Lenhoff, Jerry Magana, Seth Martindale, Jennie Meresak, Gregory Mishkin, Andrew Molloy, Jay Nagdimon, Neelima Panchang, Sailesh Panchang, Patrick Perger Jr., Shantell Pitts, Howard Port and Jane Rossetti, as Settlement Class Representatives for purposes of this settlement. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The Settlement provides for Capital One to pay $425 million to Settlement Class members in two parts: $300 million in cash and $125 million in additional interest to class members who continue to hold 360 Savings Accounts. Capital is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BvxNlk at no extra charge.[CC] MEDSTAR HEALTH: Class Settlement in Riddick Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Riddick v. MedStar Health, Inc. (re MedStar Health Data Security Incident) Case No. 1:24-cv-01335-BAH (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Brendan Hurson entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement: 1. The Court conditionally certifies, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), and for the purposes of settlement only, the following Settlement Class consisting of: "All persons residing in the United States whom the Defendant identified as having Personal Information at issue in the Data Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (b) all persons who are directors or officers of Defendant; (c) governmental entities; (d) the Judge assigned to the Action, that Judge's immediate family, and Court staff; and (e) any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 2. For settlement purposes only, the Plaintiffs Gwendolyn Riddick, Tina Goldsmith, Tracy Sanders, Evelyn Rios, Annie Slaton, and David Richter are appointed as Settlement Class Representatives. 3. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before the Court on Nov. 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. MedStar is a not-for-profit healthcare organization. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SAvIJn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com - and - Danielle Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com - and - Jason Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE, Ste. 302 Washington, DC, 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com MELNOR INC: Douglass Seeks Initial OK of Settlement --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MELNOR INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00670-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (A) Certifying the class for settlement purposes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; (B) Preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the proposed agreement; and (C) Approving the notice and notice plan included in the Proposed Order accompanying this Motion. In June 2024, Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant’s online store, located at https://melnor.com/. The Plaintiff could not access the Website because it was not compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, which Plaintiff uses to access digital content because he is blind. Consistent with prior guidance from this District, Plaintiff contacted Defendant informally to explore a prelitigation solution that would ensure Defendant’s Website becomesfully and equally accessible to blind screen reader users in the future. Plaintiff returned to the Website and found that it continued to deny him full and equal access. As a result of the parties' shared desire to achieve the best possible solution, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on May 15, 2025, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate policies and practices to cause the Website to be accessible to blind persons, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 12181, et seq., and its implementing regulations. The agreement resolves this action and defines the settlement class as: "a national class of individuals who are Blind and/or who have a Visual Disability and who use Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services to navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to access, the Website from the United States." Melnor is a manufacturing company of lawn and garden watering products such as sprinklers, nozzles, wands, hole valves and smart watering. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VXUXT6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com META PLATFORMS: Sullivan Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as James Sullivan, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of John Michael Sullivan, and all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms Inc. formerly known as: Facebook Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00456 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-05081-YGR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. Meta Platforms, Inc. -- https://about.meta.com/ -- doing business as Meta, and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin P. O'Brien, Esq. Tyler J. Stampone, Esq. STAMPONE LAW PC 500 Cottman Ave. Cheltenham, PA 19012 Phone: (215) 663-0400 Email: kobrien@stamponelaw.com tstampone@stamponelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Stanner, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 662-5261 Email: astanner@cov.com - and - Erin L. Leffler, Esq. Thomas J. Sullivan, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 278-2555 Fax: (215) 278-2594 Email: eleffler@shb.com tsullivan@shb.com METRO ELECTRO: Reassignment Order Setting CMC Entered in Corsair ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORSAIR GAMING, INC., v. METRO ELECTRO INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-04676-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered a reassignment order setting Case Management Conference (CMC): Counsel shall meet and confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the Case Management Conference with respect to the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c). Not less than seven (7) calendar days before the conference, counsel shall file a joint case management statement in compliance with the "Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Judge James Donato" and the "Standing Order For All Judges of the Northern District -- Contents of Joint Case Management statement," both of which are attached to this order and can also be found on the Court's website. A proposed order is not necessary. Following the conference, the Court will enter its own Case Management and Pretrial Order. For all other matters pertaining to the Case Management Conference, including who must attend and how the parties may make a request to reschedule the date, the parties are directed to this Court's Civil Standing Order. Parties are expected to be familiar with that order, and to comply with it fully. IT IS SO ORDERED. MetroElectro helps industrial property owners tap into renewable energy. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4YAcxs at no extra charge.[CC] METROPOLITAN COUNCIL: Fiorito Can't Pursue Class Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of counsel to represent proposed class and motion to compel preservation of evidence and for sanctions for spoliation in the case captioned as Michael Fiorito, Plaintiff v. Metropolitan Council, Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-00213-DSD-DJF (D. Minn.). Mr. Fiorito is a pro se litigant with a variety of physical maladies that limit his mobility. He claims that on several occasions from March-May 2024, Defendant Metropolitan Council ("Metro Transit") failed to adequately maintain the elevators and escalators at the Lake Street/Midtown light rail station to ensure that he could safely access the station. He is suing Metro Transit for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Mr. Fiorito's Motion for Appointment of Counsel asks the Court to appoint counsel for a proposed class of "low-income minority and disabled residents in Minneapolis's Lake Street/Midtown corridor." His Motion to Compel asks the Court to compel Metro Transit to preserve all remaining video evidence from the Lake Street Station and to levy sanctions for Metro Transit's failure to preserve video evidence from February 1, 2024 to May 1, 2025. Motion for Appointment of Counsel Mr. Fiorito asks the Court to appoint class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). The problem with Mr. Fiorito's request is that Rule 23(g) only applies after a court has certified a class. Because the Court has not certified a class in this case, Rule 23(g) does not apply. Judge Foster explains, "Indeed, the Court dismissed Mr. Fiorito's class action claims because, as a pro se litigant, he cannot prosecute class action claims. To the extent Mr. Fiorito believes Rule 23(g) provides a cure for this deficiency, he is mistaken. Rule 23(g)'s mandate contemplates the appointment of an attorney or attorneys 'who have sought appointment.' It is not a vehicle for pro se litigants to demand that a court conscript counsel to save their class action claims." According to the Court, Mr. Fiorito needs to retain counsel himself if he wishes to pursue class action claims. Motion to Compel Mr. Fiorito's Motion to Compel asks the Court to order Metro Transit to preserve all video evidence from the Lake Street Station from February 1, 2024 to May 1, 2025, and to sanction Metro Transit with an adverse-inference instruction for any such evidence that it may have deleted. Metro Transit argues that the Court should deny the Motion because: (1.) Mr. Fiorito failed to satisfy the Court's meet and confer requirement; (2.) Metro Transit lacked notice of any preservation obligation for most of the data Mr. Fiorito seeks; (3.) preservation of the evidence would be unreasonably burdensome on Metro Transit; and (4.) Mr. Fiorito has failed to show that any deletion of evidence warrants sanctions. The Court denies Mr. Fiorito's Motion on the merits. According to the Court, Mr. Fiorito Motion seeks an unreasonable amount of discovery that is disproportionate to the needs of the case. His Motion asks Metro Transit to preserve over a year's worth of video evidence, much of which has already been lost because of Metro Transit's standard retention procedures. His demand that Metro Transit preserve such a large quantity of data far exceeding the scope of his claims is unreasonable. The Court further finds that an adverse-inference sanction for Metro Transit's automated deletion of the Lake Street Station's video is unwarranted. Video data from the Lake Street Station is regularly destroyed because Metro Transit's video storage system is not capable of preserving it without risking serious adverse consequences. There is no evidence in the record to suggest otherwise. An adverse inference sanction is therefore unwarranted. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2MJVTr from PacerMonitor.com. MMG TAMIAMI SQUARE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property --------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. MMG TAMIAMI SQUARE, LLC; J & A FOODS LLC; TWO LATIN CHEFS CORP; and GOMEZ MOYA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-22745-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 17, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. MMG TAMIAMI SQUARE, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the businesses therein, and all the common areas in the Commercial Property located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS: Guinyard Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Dianna Guinyard and Diana Claudio, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-01864 (D. Colo., June 16, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New Jersey Wage and Hour Regulations, New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("New Jersey Wage Acts"), South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (South Carolina Wage Act"), and common law by failure to pay proper wages. The Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its CSRs for work tasks completed before their scheduled shifts when they are not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system. This timekeeping procedure resulted in CSRs not being paid for all overtime hours worked and in workweeks in which CSRs worked overtime, for straight time, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as remote non-exempt CSRs. The Defendant "is leading the transformation to better connect people with care."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com NATIONAL CABLE: Horan Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW HORAN, et al., v. NATIONAL CABLE SATELLITE CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-01114-BAH (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for filing their motion for class certification from the deadline set by the local rules (90 days after the filing of a Complaint) to a date to be determined in the future, once the Court sets a deadline for the close of class-certification related discovery. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(f), the Plaintiffs represent that they conferred with the Defendant, and state that the Defendant does not oppose the Plaintiffs' request. National is a private, non-profit public service of the cable television industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BfbLBj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stan M. Doerrer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STAN M. DOERRER PLLC 950 N. Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 348-4646 Facsimile: (703) 348-0048 E-mail: stan@doerrerlaw.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 West Washington Street Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 E-mail: katrina@csclassactions.com NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sued Over Canceled Policies for Senior Pets -------------------------------------------------------------- Brittney Meredith-Miller of PropertyCasualty360.com reports that a group of insurance customers has filed a proposed class action against Nationwide that alleges the insurer pulled a bait-and-switch to get them to purchase Whole Pet insurance policies. The complaint claims the plaintiffs purchased "nose-to-tail" Whole Pet insurance policies from Nationwide Veterinary Pet Insurance Company that the company promised would never be canceled due to a pet's age. However, after paying premiums on these policies for years, the pet owners allege Nationwide dropped their policies -- leaving them with unable to cover health care expenses for their now-senior dogs and with little hope of finding another pet insurer as most exclude pre-existing conditions. The lawsuit alleges that with little warning, Nationwide canceled its Whole Pet with Wellness Plans, which left the families of more than 100,000 pets in the U.S. scrambling for coverage. A group of insurance customers has filed a proposed class action against Nationwide that alleges the insurer pulled a bait-and-switch to get them to purchase Whole Pet insurance policies. The complaint claims the plaintiffs purchased "nose-to-tail" Whole Pet insurance policies from Nationwide Veterinary Pet Insurance Company that the company promised would never be canceled due to a pet's age. However, after paying premiums on these policies for years, the pet owners allege Nationwide dropped their policies -- leaving them with unable to cover health care expenses for their now-senior dogs and with little hope of finding another pet insurer as most exclude pre-existing conditions. The Whole Pet insurance policy is one that -- according to Nationwide's advertising -- includes coverage for a variety of accidents and illnesses, including broken bones, poisoning, heart disease, being hit by a vehicle, diabetes, ingested items and more. There are two options for these plans, offering 50% and 70% reimbursement respectively, which range in price from $34 to $46 per month for a cat or dog. This plan excludes wellness services like vaccines, flea control, bloodwork and checkups. The policy at issue in the suit is Nationwide's Whole Pet with Wellness Plan, which was supposed to provide coverage for chronic conditions and would not expire based on the age of the pet. The lawsuit alleges that with little warning, Nationwide canceled customers' Whole Pet with Wellness Plans, which left the families of more than 100,000 pets in the U.S. scrambling for coverage. It notes that Nationwide claims the decision to drop these plans was based on inflated veterinary costs and other similar factors, and that it was not based on the pets' ages, breeds or claim history. However, plaintiffs in the case allege that these cancellations only affected their pets who were aging or had significant medical needs. The suit states, "Nationwide's decision to cancel the Whole Pet with Wellness Plan, especially for loyal customers whose pets were covered by Nationwide since they were kittens/puppies, is callous and unjust because these customers were left with no protection and no alternatives. Nationwide had the ability to transfer all of these Whole Pet policies to a different Nationwide pet insurance policy. It chose profits and deceit over consumer fairness." The suit alleges the actions from Nationwide violate Massachusetts' Consumer Protection Act as well as other state statutes prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts and practices, and that they constitute negligent misrepresentation and fraud. The class has requested a jury trial seeking compensatory, consequential, statutory and punitive awards as well as legal fees and an injunction to prevent "Nationwide's ongoing deceptive conduct." [GN] NATURE'S PATH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Miller Due July 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN MILLER and SONIA ECHEVVERIA- CORZAN, as an individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. NATURE'S PATH FOODS, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-05711-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing deadlines for class certification briefing: -- The deadline for the Plaintiffs' class certification motion and the Plaintiffs' expert disclosures for class certification is reset to July 25, 2025; -- The deadline for the Defendant's opposition to the class certification motion and the Defendant's expert disclosures for class certification is reset to Oct. 3, 2025; -- The class certification expert discovery cut-off is reset to Nov. 14, 2025; -- The deadline for the Plaintiffs' class certification reply is reset to Dec. 2, 2025. Nature's is family-owned producer of certified organic foods. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sff9Wz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Kali Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 271-6469 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Jaikaran Singh, Esq. Charles B. Stevens, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (213) 972-4500 Facsimile: (213) 486-0065 E-mail: jsingh@Foley.Com charles.stevens@foley.com NEWREZ LLC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE MOODY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No. 1:24-cv-05406-ELR-CMS (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Catherine Salinas entered an order granting the Plaintiff's consent motion for extension of time to move for class certification. The Court extends the time for the Plaintiff to move for class certification until and including 30 days after the Court decides the Defendant's pending motion to strike and for judgment on the pleadings. NewRez provides financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KDJjAm at no extra charge.[CC] OCUCO INC: Barnes Files Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocuco Inc. The case is styled as Jacqueline Barnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ocuco Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-01579 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Ocuco -- https://www.ocuco.com/ -- develops and supplies software solutions for independent opticians, optical retail chains, and optical lens manufacturing labs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com PACIFIC GAS: Moon Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeromy Moon, Ricardo Luna, and Guy Graff, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV117691 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05178. On April 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against PG&E in this Court alleging causes of action for failure to provide off-duty rest periods in violation of Labor Code section 226.7 and Wage Order No. 4; failure to pay minimum wage for hours worked during meal periods in violation of Labor Code section 1194 and Wage Order No. 4; failure to provide access to restroom facilities in violation of Labor Code sections 6400-6403, 6407 and California Code of Regulations section 3364; failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226; failure to pay all wages due upon termination in violation of Labor Code sections 200-203; and unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers, 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: jkienitz@littler.com - and - P. Dustin Bodaghi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Email: dbodaghi@littler.com - and - Olivia Florio Roberts, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: oflorioroberts@littler.com PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Daniels Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Haley Daniels and Steven Daniels, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PALAMERICAN SECURITY CALIFORNIA, INC; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 25CV007020 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00778. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint for Meal Break Violations; Rest Break Violations; Failure to Pay All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay Overtime; Wage Statement Violation; Waiting Time Penalties; Unlawful Competition; PAGA Allegations; Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; Wrongful Termination in Violation of FEHA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John E. McOsker, Esq. Daphne M. Anneet, Esq. Rachel E. Balchum, Esq. Andrew T. Magaline, Esq. BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2942 Phone: 213.236.0600 Fax: 213.236.2700 Email: jmcosker@bwslaw.com danneet@bwslaw.com rbalchum@bwslaw.com amagaline@bwslaw.com PENN ABSTRACT: Court Dismisses Gahagan Suit Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MELISSA GAHAGAN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENN ABSTRACT & LAND SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01921-JPW (M.D. Pa.), Judge Jennifer P. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice. The class action lawsuit concerns fees charged for notary services. The Plaintiff, Melissa Gahagan, individually and on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs, alleges that the Defendants charged fees for notary services that exceeded the maximum amount allowable under Pennsylvania law. In November 2022, Gahagan refinanced her residential real estate in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. As part of this process, Gahagan signed mortgage and a signature affidavit. Defendant Wendi Donmoyer works for Defendant Penn Abstract & Land Services LLC (d/b/a "Lebanon Land Transfer") and is the notary public, who notarized Gahagan's signature on the mortgage and signature affidavit. The Closing Disclosure that Lebanon Land Transfer issued to Gahagan stated that it charged Gahagan a fee of $40 for these notary services. Gahagan alleges that she paid the $40 notary fee without objection. She, then, filed a class action complaint against the Defendants on Nov. 7, 2024. She alleges that the Defendants are liable for unjust enrichment and violating Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"). On Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Gahagan's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), along with a brief in support. Gahagan responded in opposition on Feb. 7, 2025. The Defendants then timely filed a reply brief. The Defendants argue that Gahagan has failed to state a UTPCPL claim for several reasons. They contend that a UTPCPL claim can only arise from a violation of a state statute, like the RULONA, when the statute "expressly provides for that kind of enforcement." According to the Defendants, RULONA does not so provide; thus, "the UTPCPL does not provide an automatic cause of action for violati[ng] RULONA." The Defendants separately argue that Gahagan has failed to plead adequately several of the elements of a UTPCPL claim. Judge Wilson notes that Gahagan does not respond to any of the Defendants' arguments. In fact, Gahagan entirely fails to proffer any argument as to why her UTPCPL claim should proceed. Judge Wilson opines that it is axiomatic that a brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss that fails to respond to a substantive argument to dismiss a particular claim results in the waiver or abandonment of that claim, citing Orange v. United States, No. 1:23-CV-00393, 2024 WL 3939100, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2024). Accordingly, Gahagan's UTPCPL claim fails as a result of her waiver. The Defendants also argue that Gahagan's unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge Wilson says Gahagan's unjust enrichment claim is properly understood as a tort-companion claim, not an alternative to breach of contract. Gahagan alleges that she received notarial services and, in exchange, paid without objection the $40 notary fee that the Defendants charged her for such services. Judge Wilson finds there was plainly an express agreement between Gahagan and the Defendants. Nothing in the complaint suggests that Gahagan paid the Defendant's notary fee for any reason other than the express agreement between the parties. So, too, Gahagan makes no argument in her brief in opposition that her claim should be understood as an alternative to breach of contract. Instead, she argues that the basis for her unjust enrichment claims is the Defendants' allegedly unlawful overcharge of notary fees. Judge Wilson opines that Gahagan's waiver of her UTPCPL claim is fatal to her unjust-enrichment claim. Indeed, an unjust enrichment claim based on wrongful conduct cannot stand alone as a substitute for the failed tort claim. Thus, Gahagan's abandonment of her UTPCPL claim results in the failure of her unjust enrichment claim. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court dismisses Gahagan's claims without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/4fff7sbh from PacerMonitor.com. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2pebeb3u from PacerMonitor.com. PINWHEEL LLC: De La Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinwheel LLC. The case is styled as Benigno De La Cruz, individually and on behalf of similarly situated former and current aggrieved employees v. Pinwheel LLC, Caroline Quaglio, David Quaglio, Does 1 to 50, Case No. 25STCV17418 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2025). Pinwheel LLC -- https://www.pinwheelapi.com/ -- offers secure, reliable access to consumer income data for financial innovation at scale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 487-1998 Fax: (888) 783-1030 Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com PKL SERVICES: Balvaneda Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Danny Balvaneda, on behalf of others similarly situated and the State of California under the Private Attorneys General Act v. PKL SERVICES, INC.; 4M HR LOGISTICS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU022118 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01569-JAH-AHG. The Plaintiff purports to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of "All current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in California at any time from one year prior to the postmark date of the initial PAGA notice through date of trial." The Plaintiff alleges one cause of action for civil penalties under the PAGA. The alleged underlying violations of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders entitling Plaintiff and the representative group to penalties are as follows: Unpaid Hours Worked/Minimum Wage Owed; Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Sick Leave; Unpaid Meal Period Premium Wages; Unpaid Rest Period Premium Wages; Untimely Payment of Wages During Employment; Untimely Payment of Wages Upon Separation of Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Unreimbursed Employee Expenses; and Failure to Maintain Accurate Records.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Virginia L. Miller, Esq. PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1650 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949.383.2997 Facsimile: 619.235.0398 Email: gina.miller@procopio.com - and - Marina C. Gruber, Esq. Taylor N. Tejeda, Esq. PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP 3000 El Camino Real Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: 650.645.9000 Facsimile: 619.235.0398 Email: marina.gruber@procopio.com taylor.tejeda@procopio.com R.J. SULLIVAN: Strickland Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Strickland, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. R.J. SULLIVAN CORP, a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No. 9:25-cv-80751-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 16, 2025), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other current and former similarly situated employees unpaid wages and overtime wages for all time worked more than 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the FLSA. During his employment from March 2024 through March 2025, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek in his capacity as a construction laborer. The Plaintiff's regular hourly rate of pay was $25.00 per hour, entitling him to overtime compensation at the rate of $37.50 per hour (time-and-one-half) for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant has engaged in a systematic practice of editing and altering employee timesheets to reduce recorded hours worked, thereby avoiding payment of overtime compensation required under the FLSA. Specifically, Defendant has reduced the number of hours recorded on employee timesheets to ensure that recorded hours do not exceed 40 hours per workweek, or has otherwise manipulated timesheet records to avoid overtime obligations. As a result of Defendant's unlawful practices, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have been denied overtime compensation at the rate of time-and-one-half their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an hourly construction laborer. The Defendant operates a construction company providing construction services throughout South Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com RASSINI BRAKES: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Willie Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RASSINI BRAKES, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-11814-RJW-APP (E.D. Mich., June 17, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's shift differential pay, attendance bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA. As a result of these violations, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and all other hourly employees for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, interest, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from September 2022 through May 7, 2025, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Defendant's principal place of business is located in Flint, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Tamayo Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Neftali Tamayo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV026022 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05450. The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and restitution on behalf of a putative class for alleged: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wage; final wages not timely paid; wages not timely paid during employment; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse for necessary business expenses; and a derivative claim for unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara J. Miller, Esq. Alexander L. Grodan, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com ROBERT THEDE: Cannon Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lindsey Cannon, an individual, on behalf of herself, the public in California, and all others similarly situated v. ROBERT THEDE, an individual; ALL ROADS TRAVEL LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,, Case No. C24-02402 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-05075. On September 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County. Plaintiff brings claims under California law for alleged violations of California's Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17550, and for breach of contract.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kevin J. Minnick, Esq. SPERTUS, LANDES & JOSEPHS, LLP 617 West 7th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 205-6520 Facsimile: (213) 205-6521 Email: kminnick@spertuslaw.com SABLE OFFSHORE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Sable Offshore Corp. (NYSE: SOC), including those who purchased shares pursuant to Sable Offshore Corp.'s May 2025 public offering, resulting from allegations that Sable Offshore Corp. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Sable Offshore Corp. securities, including pursuant to Sable Offshore Corp.'s May 2025 public offering, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=40629 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On May 28, 2025, Investing.com published an article entitled "Sable Offshore Corp stock sinks following court injunction." The article stated that Sable Offshore Corp.'s stock had fallen after "the California Coastal Commission was granted a preliminary injunction against the company's pipeline repair and maintenance activities within the coastal zone in unincorporated Santa Barbara County. The court's decision, which aligns with the Coastal Act's strict regulations on coastal development, has raised concerns about potential project delays and additional costs for Sable Offshore." On this news, the price of Sable Offshore Corp. stock fell 15.3% on May 28, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contacts: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Heine Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL HEINE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-11790 (D. Mass., June 20, 2025) arises out of Sensata's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to an "Incident Notice" posted on its website, a data breach occurred in Sensata's network during the period between March 28, 2025, and April 6, 2025 (the Data Breach). Sensata's website notice states that it "recently identified and addressed a security incident potentially involving information concerning current and former U.S. employees, their dependents, and other individuals whose information we maintained for a business-related reason. Some of the individuals are or were participants in Sensata's health plan. Due to Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the Data Breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate highly sensitive and personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of this Data Breach, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information of remains in the hands of those cybercriminals. However, despite apparently learning of the Data Breach during April 2025 and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach, Defendant did not begin sending notices to the victims of the Data Breach until June 5, 2025. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included current and former employees' PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's. This Private Information included, but is not limited to: names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, passport number, other government-issued identification number, credit card numbers, financial account information, and medical information such as health insurance information and treatment information. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information with which it was entrusted for either employment or treatment or both, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and failing to include in that belated and inadequate notice precisely what specific types of information were accessed and taken by cybercriminals. The Defendant is a global industrial technology company that designs, manufactures and distributes sensors, electrical protection components motor controls and thermal controllers for use in automotive, heavy vehicle & off-road, industrial, and aerospace applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 677-5144 E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com SHALOM RESTAURANT: Lorenzo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jenniffer Lorenzo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SHALOM RESTAURANT, INC., CONFESORA ABREU; MATEO DELAROSA, MIGUEL ABREU and FATIMA HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-05033 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), (the "Hospitality Wage Order"), and supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations, to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours premiums, and for failure to comply with wage notice and wage statement requirements. The Defendants' failure to provide proper tip credit notice was willful, as the Hospitality Industry Wage Order clearly sets forth these requirements, and Defendants operated in the restaurant industry where tip credits are commonly used. As a direct result of Defendants' failure to provide proper tip credit notice, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference between what she was paid and the full minimum wage rate, without any tip credit reduction, for all hours worked during her employment. The Defendants further failed to pay Plaintiff the legally required overtime rate of one-and-one-half times her regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from June 2020 until December 2024 as a server. SHALOM RESTAURANT, INC. is a New York corporation doing business as Shalom Restaurant located in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 10017 Phone: 718-669-0714 Fax: 646-556-6112 Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com SIX FLAGS AMERICA: Dunn Suit Removed to D. Maryland --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ceonni Dunn, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. SIX FLAGS AMERICA, LP, and INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF CREDENTIALING AND CONTINUING EDUCATION STANDARDS, LLC, Case No. C-16-CV-25-002472 was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01959-PX. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant operates "a place of public accommodation" "in Prince George's County," Maryland, and as such, "is prohibited from acting on the basis of age, physical impairment, or mental impairment against any person in such a way as to adversely affect that person's access to advantages, facilities, or privileges." The Plaintiff alleges that the "screening and approving or denying requested accommodations constitutes discrimination creating a differentiation in the ability of disabled persons and non-disabled persons ability to similarly enjoy the services, privileges, use, enjoyment, and accommodations of the Park."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexis Bosilovic, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 815 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006.4046 Phone: 202.842.3400 Facsimile: 202.842.0011 Email: abosilovic@littler.com SLOWEAR NEW YORK: Anderson Alleges Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Slowear New York, Ltd., Ltd., Case No. 1:25-cv-03451 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Slowear.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Slowear's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the suit. Slowear.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs offered by Slowear New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com SPACE COAST: 11th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in Merritt ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MERRITT ISLAND WOODWERX, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, TRUE TOUCH SERVICES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SPACE COAST CREDIT UNION, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 24-10019 (11 Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Space Coast's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs are entities who opened checking accounts with Defendant and agreed to a Master Services Agreement (MSA). They dispute that they should have to pay various fees that Space Coast charged them because of the text of the MSA. The MSA contained a mandatory arbitration clause, which selected the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and its rules as those to govern the arbitration. The arbitration clause also had a provision that stated that "if AAA is unavailable to resolve the Claims, and if you and we do not agree on a substitute forum, then you can select the forum for the resolution of the Claims." Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's failure to comply with AAA requirements rendered arbitration unavailable. The primary basis for their allegation is that on April 20, 2023, the AAA responded in a letter to Space Coast and Woodwerx that it was declining "to administer this claim and any other claims between Space Coast Credit Union and its consumers at this time" because Space Coast had not submitted its consumer dispute resolution plan for review or paid the fee. The Plaintiffs allege that Space Coast acted inconsistently with its arbitration right by not trying to remedy the barrier to arbitration that it had caused. On behalf of a putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege improper fees charged by Defendant. They seek to proceed with litigation rather than arbitration based on Defendant's noncompliance with AAA requirements. Characterizing the district court's ruling as erroneous, Defendant now moves to compel arbitration on four grounds. In reviewing the motion to compel arbitration, the Court applied the precedent established in Bedgood v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., which held "that the company's failure to comply with the rules of its chosen arbitral forum renders the remedies specified in Sections 3 and 4 of the FAA unavailable to it and, accordingly, that the plaintiffs who have contracts with the company may proceed to litigation." Defendant argued that Plaintiff lacks standing to proceed with litigation because: (1) the arbitration provision contractually obligated the plaintiffs to arbitrate and barred them from suing in federal court notwithstanding the AAA's declination; (2) the district court incorrectly determined that Space Coast was "in default" on its arbitration rights under Section 3 of the FAA; (3) True Touch's perceived futility did not excuse it from needing to attempt arbitration before suing; and (4) the district court erred in concluding that neither plaintiff was entitled to an affirmative order directing arbitration under Section 4 of the FAA. Upon careful review of the arguments, the Court concludes that Defendant's motion to compel arbitration fails on all counts. With regard to the contractual obligation to arbitrate, the Court found that "under the substitute-forum clause, however, a court is a forum." The substitute-forum clause stated that "if AAA is unavailable to resolve the Claims, and if you and we do not agree on a substitute forum, then you can select the forum for the resolution of the Claims." Therefore, contrary to Space Coast's argument, the plaintiffs didn't violate the contract on its face. Upon careful examination of Space Coast's default status, the Court finds that Space Coast was in default under Section 3 of the FAA because "it acted inconsistently with its arbitration right by not trying to remedy the barrier to arbitration that it had caused. The AAA stated that it wouldn't "administer Woodwerx's claim and any other claims between Space Coast Credit Union and its consumers at this time" because of Space Coast's procedural failure. According to the Court, with regard to True Touch's futility argument, True Touch had an identical arbitration provision to Woodwerx, and "under Bedgood, it didn't matter that True Touch didn't formally request to arbitrate before filing suit." True Touch had sufficient "evidentiary basis" in the form "of an actual rejection letter" to support a valid futility argument. The Court finds Defendant's claim for Section 4 relief is likewise deficiently argued. Under Bedgood, Space Coast's argument with respect to Woodwerx failed because "Woodwerx attempted to arbitrate; there was no 'failure, neglect, or refusal' by which Space Coast could have been 'aggrieved.'" As to True Touch, Space Coast failed to meet the causal condition because "to the extent that Space Coast is aggrieved, it was aggrieved either by its own failure to bring its arbitration clause into compliance with AAA policies or by the AAA's decision to that effect, not True Touch's conduct. Defendant argues that its post-filing compliance with AAA requirements should cure its prior noncompliance. Accordingly, the Court concluded that "post-filing conduct cannot cure the prior noncompliance." The Court reasoned that "any rule to the contrary would result in gamesmanship by companies attempting to remedy an arbitration roadblock that they knowingly caused. Therefore, Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is denied. The Court concluded that by ignoring the AAA's letter for a month and a half until after a lawsuit was filed against it, Space Coast acted inconsistently with the intention to vindicate its contractual arbitration rights. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were within their rights under Bedgood to proceed to and remain in litigation. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zJvvv1 SPRINTFONE INC: Bland Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sprintfone Inc. The case is styled as Kelly Bland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sprintfone Inc. doing business as: TalkDaily, Case No. 1:25-cv-00782-FJS-MJK (N.D.N.Y., June 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Sprintfone Inc. doing business as TalkDaily -- https://talkdailyinc.com/ -- offers a variety of prepaid plans to fit your mobile lifestyle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com STEW LEONARD'S: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Says -------------------------------------------------------------- PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Stew Leonard's Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03452 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Dinghyshop.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint asserts that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Stew's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the suit. Stewleonards.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs offered by Stew Leonard's Holdings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com TAXSLAYER LLC: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Suit for $840,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that TaxSlayer has agreed to pay $840,000 to resolve claims it violated California's privacy laws. The settlement benefits California residents who visited the TaxSlayer website and who provided information thereon between Feb. 6, 2018, and Nov. 17, 2022. TaxSlayer is an online tax preparation service that allows users to file their taxes from home. The company's website allows customers to access their tax information and file their taxes directly from their computers or mobile devices. A 2022 class action lawsuit claimed TaxSlayer used certain digital technologies on its website that improperly disclosed customer information. TaxSlayer has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to this $840,000 class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. No payment estimates are available at this time. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 9, 2025. Who's Eligible California residents who visited the TaxSlayer website and who provided information thereon between Feb. 6, 2018, and Nov. 17, 2022. Potential Award TBD 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 09/09/2025 Case Name The People of the State of California v. TaxSlayer LLC, Case No. 24STCV34102, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles Final Hearing N/A Settlement Website LosAngelesCountySettlementWithTaxSlayer.com Claims Administrator Analytics Consulting LLC P.O. Box 2002 Chanhassen, MN 55317-2002 LATaxSlayerSettlement@noticeadministrator.com (855) 659-2983 Class Counsel Los Angeles City Attorney LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL Defense Counsel N/A [GN] TERRAMAR CAPITAL: Lacy Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Hannah Lacy, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. TERRAMAR CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU024936N was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01563-RSH-MMP. The Complaint alleges that, "For years, Defendant has engaged in a harmful fake discounting scheme by advertising its Francesca's merchandise at discounted 'sale' prices in their stores located in California and across the United States." The Complaint further alleges "on information and belief, virtually all of the products in Francesca's stores" are "involved in Defendant's deceit" and that Defendant's merchandise is priced with "phantom reference prices the vast majority of the time." The Complaint also alleges that Francesca's use of false advertising is a "uniform storewide practice in place at all Francesca's stores" and also "on Defendant's e-commerce website".[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Logan D. Smith, Esq. Alexander D. Wall, Esq. MCNAMARA SMITH LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, California 92101 Phone: 619-269-0400 Facsimile: 619-269-0401 Email: lsmith@mcnamarallp.com awall@mcnamarallp.com - and - Micah E. Marcus, Esq. Margaret C. Redshaw, Esq. MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC 300 North LaSalle, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312-280-0111 Email: mmarcus@mcdonaldhopkins.com mredshaw@mcdonaldhopkins.com TEXTRON AVIATION: CBP Air Files Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Textron Aviation Inc. The case is styled as CBP Air Logistics LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Textron Aviation Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01049-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., June 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Airplane Product Liability. Textron Aviation Inc. -- https://txtav.com/ -- is the general aviation business unit of the conglomerate Textron that was formed in March 2014 following the acquisition of Beech Holdings which included the Beechcraft and Hawker Aircraft businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin E. Epps, Esq. Tyler M. Gaines, Esq. EPPS, HOLLOWAY, DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC 1220 Langford Drive Building 200, Suite 101 Watkinsville, GA 30677 Phone: (706) 508-4000 Fax: (706) 842-6750 - and - Ian S Macdonald, Esq. CLARK PARTINGTON 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 530 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: (850) 320-6825 Email: imacdonald@clarkpartington.com TOWER EV: Evans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tower EV, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Cameron Evans, an individual, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees v. Tower EV, LLC, ANDRES MUNOZ, Case No. 25STCV17618 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Tower EV, LLC -- https://www.towerev.com/ -- offers electric vehicles featuring the latest in automotive technology, offering a smarter, more connected way to travel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO 801 S Grand Ave, Ste 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-4633 Phone: 213-229-0100 Fax: 213-229-0114 Email: orobinson@rdwlaw.com TRIPADVISOR LLC: Andersen Sues Over Illegal Use of Pixel Trackers ----------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN ANDERSEN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. TRIPADVISOR LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01527 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2025) contends that the Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of Pixel Trackers on their devices and did not expect their behavioral data to be disclosed or monetized in this way. By installing and using the Trackers without prior consent and without a court order, Defendant violated CIPA section 638.51. A pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. It typically appears as a small, transparent 1x1 image or a lightweight JavaScript snippet that activates when a webpage is loaded or a user performs a tracked action. When triggered, the pixel transmits data from the user's browser to a third-party server. This data typically includes page views, session duration, referrer URLs, IP address, browser and device details, and other interaction metadata. When users visit the Website, the Defendant causes tracking technologies to be embedded in visitors' browsers, says the suit. These include, but are not limited to, the following: -- Google DoubleClick Tracker -- Rubicon Tracker -- Amazon AdSystem Tracker -- Casale Media Tracker (IndexExchange). The third parties who operate the above-listed trackers use pieces of User Information collected via the Website as described herein for their own independent purposes tied to broader advertising ecosystems, profiling, and data monetization strategies that go beyond Defendant’s direct needs for their own financial gain. The case is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and on behalf of all California residents who have accessed the Website. The Defendant owns and operates a website, www.tripadvisor.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8-1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Court Orders Doe Plaintiffs to Use True Names ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JANE DOE (1), et al., Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02200-HLT-TJJ (D. Kan.), Judge Holly L. Teeter of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas directs the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint using their true names. The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action using pseudonyms. They did not seek leave to proceed pseudonymously, so the Court issued a show-cause order asking them to explain why it should not dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs responded. The Plaintiffs have been patients at Lawrence Memorial Hospital (LMH) and have been patients of the University of Kansas Hospital Authority (KU Health). As patients of LMH, medical staff took body measurements and photographs of the Plaintiffs for their medical records and recorded other identifying information, such as name, address, and birthdate. The Plaintiffs did not receive treatment at KU Health for anything related to the procedures they underwent at LMH. Physical Therapist is employed by KU Health. The Plaintiffs do not know and have never received treatment from Physical Therapist. Physical Therapist accessed the Plaintiffs' health information and medical records despite having no treatment relationship or legitimate purpose. The Plaintiffs allege Physical Therapist targeted female patients, who had undergone certain surgical procedures at LMH and whose medical records contained measurements and photographs. The Plaintiffs allege that for a period of at least two years Physical Therapist--despite having no treatment relationship or legitimate purpose--was able to access health information and medical records of the putative class members through the Epic Systems Corporation (Epic) interface without detection by KU Health or LMH and without alert or flagging by Epic or its system. KU Health learned about the issue in February 2023 and sent the Plaintiffs a letter in April 2023 stating that their personal information had been compromised in a data breach caused by a KU Health employee. The letter does not identify Physical Therapist (but states that KU Health "terminated the employee involved in this incident"), omits the total number of affected patients, fails to clarify whether the accessed information originated solely from KU Health or also from other healthcare providers, and lacks other information. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action using pseudonyms on April 15, 2025. The Plaintiffs allege thirteen claims ranging from violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to breach of contract to intentional infliction of emotional distress to violations of the Fourth Amendment. They seek injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, consequential, general, punitive, and statutory damages along with attorney's fees. The Court issued a show-cause order because the Plaintiffs did not file using their true names. The Plaintiffs have responded. Judge Teeter notes that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to sue in their true names. This requirement promotes public access to judicial records and allows the citizenry to monitor the system. Despite the mandatory language of this requirement, there are a few narrow exceptions that are reserved for exceptional cases. Judge Teeter points out that this case is not exceptional under the Tenth Circuit standard. The Tenth Circuit allows a litigant "to proceed anonymously only in those exceptional cases involving matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature, real dangers of physical harm, or where the injury litigated against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff's identity," citing Luo v. Wang, 71 F.4th 1289, 1296 (10th Cir. 2023). Judge Teeter opines that allowing the Plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonym in this case would open the door to allowing plaintiffs in many other cases involving medical procedures to do the same. Judge Teeter holds that this case is important but not exceptional under the Tenth Circuit standard. The Court, therefore, orders that the Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint using their true names within 14 days of this Order. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3yawnz7f from PacerMonitor.com. VENTURA PARK: Sierra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ventura Park Management, LLC. The case is styled as Angela Sierra, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Ventura Park Management, LLC, Case No. 25STCV17613 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Ventura Park Management LLC is a healthcare organization in Woodland Hills, California with a specialty of Assisted Living Facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com VESTRA LABS: Abercrombie Wage Suit Remanded to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as Breyonna Marie Abercrombie, Plaintiff, v. Vestra Labs LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01529-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.) to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento. Vestra invoked the District Court's jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441 when it removed this case from state court. Under the Class Action Fairness Act, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over class actions if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, if at least one member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a different state than at least one of the defendants, and if the class includes at least one hundred members. Under Sec. 1441, a case filed in state court can be removed to the federal district court if the federal district court would have had original jurisdiction over that case. Abercrombie argues the District Court does not have jurisdiction under Sec. 1441(a) because Vestra did not show in its notice of removal that more than $5 million is in controversy. Abercrombie asserts several claims in her operative first amended complaint. Vestra estimated the amount in controversy for several of these claims in its notice of removal and added these estimates together, resulting in an allegation that approximately $6.4 million is in controversy. But that estimate is not reasonable, and it is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. In her first and second claims, Abercrombie alleges Vestra did not pay mandatory minimum and overtime wages for all of the time she and other similar employees were working. She alleges Vestra required her and other employees to work during their rest and meal breaks, resulting in more than eight hours of work per day and more than forty hours of work per week. Vestra assumed, based on these allegations, that Abercrombie intended to prove at trial that employees worked at least fifty minutes each day without pay, i.e., one thirty-minute meal break and two ten-minute rest breaks. Vestra estimated that Abercrombie's first claim put almost $1.5 million in controversy. But as Abercrombie correctly points out, it was unreasonable for Vestra to read the complaint as alleging employees worked more than four hours' unpaid overtime every week. According to the Court, a reasonable estimate of the amount in controversy for claims one and two is therefore about $460,000. In Abercrombie's second and third claims, she alleges Vestra owes her and other employees a statutory penalty of one hour's pay for each missed meal and rest break. Vestra assumed based on these allegations that each member of the class was seeking a two-hour penalty for each workday: one hour for the missed meal break and one hour for the missed rest breaks. Based on this reasonable assumption, claims three and four put about $1.2 million in controversy. Vestra next turned to Abercrombie's sixth claim and her allegation that the company distributed inaccurate wage statements to Abercrombie and other employees. It estimated Abercrombie's wage statement claim put about $278,000 in controversy. In Abercrombie's seventh and eighth claims, she alleges Vestra did not pay wages to its employees before the relevant statutory deadlines. Based on Vestra's assumptions about the amount of unpaid overtime at issue -- fifty minutes per day -- it estimated the seventh and eighth claims together put more than $2 million in controversy. But it was not reasonable to include overtime pay in this estimate. It is reasonable therefore to assume claims seven and eight put more than $1.8 million in controversy, the Court finds. In addition to her class claims, Abercrombie seeks penalties under the California Private Attorneys' General Act. Vestra included an estimate of the amount in controversy based on these penalties. It assumed Abercrombie would later seek an award of her attorneys' fees equal to 20 percent of the total class recovery. It offered no evidence and no reasoning to support its assumption that a 20 percent fee is at stake or would be reasonable. But even if Vestra had shown a 20 percent fee was reasonable and in controversy, adding that fee would not yield a sum higher than the $5 million jurisdictional threshold required for this case to remain in federal court. The Court finds Vestra did not rely on Abercrombie's other claims and allegations to allege more than $5 million is in controversy. In total, then, Vestra's Notice of Removal supports the reasonable assumption that Abercrombie's allegations put about $3.8 million in controversy in this case. Because that total is lower than the $5 million jurisdictional threshold, the District Court would not have had original jurisdiction over this action under Sec. 1332(d) when the removal notice was filed, so it lacks removal jurisdiction under Sec. 1441(a). A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HwFWMM from PacerMonitor.com. VINFAST AUTO LLC: Swigi Files Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VinFast Auto, LLC. The case is styled as Gil Abrahem Swigi, Joseph Mizrahi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VinFast Auto, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05560 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. VinFast Auto -- https://vinfastauto.us/ -- is a Vietnamese multinational automotive company founded by Vingroup.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Ingber, Esq. INGBER LAW GROUP 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 805-8373 Email: ji@jasoningber.com VISION SERVICE: Has Until July 11 to Respond to Tash Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Daniel J. Calabretta of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the parties' stipulated request to extend the deadline for defendants to respond to the complaint in the case captioned as BRIAN TASH on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VISION SERVICE PLAN a/k/a VSP GLOBAL, VSP VENTURES, LLC, VSP VENTURES MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, and VSP VENTURES OPTOMETRIC SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00762-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.) from June 11, 2025 to July 11, 2025. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 6, 2025. On June 5, 2025, a separate putative class action lawsuit was filed in this same district against Defendants. The Hahn Complaint asserts substantially the same claims based on substantially the same allegations as the instant action. In light of this new development, and to avoid unnecessary duplicative efforts in the two related cases, counsel for the parties are conferring regarding the possibility of consolidating this action and Hahn, which would serve the interests of judicial efficiency and eliminate the potential risk of inconsistent rulings and judgments. As Defendants have not yet filed a responsive pleading in Tash, and both Tash and Hahn are generally at the same stages of litigation where the pleadings in both have not yet been settled, the parties believe and respectively submit that the requested relief will not cause undue delay. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 144(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), the parties agree that good cause exists to extend Defendants' deadline to file a responsive pleading by an additional thirty (30) days so that the parties can explore the consolidation of the two actions. An extension of Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint is likely to obviate unnecessary motion practice with respect to the Complaint, which would likely be rendered moot upon the filing of a consolidated amended complaint if the cases are consolidated. Further, the proposed stipulation is not sought to unduly delay the proceedings and will not prejudice any party. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9pvNXl from PacerMonitor.com. Rebekah S. Guyon -- Rebekah.Guyon@gtlaw.com -- Lori Chang -- ChangL@gtlaw.com -- David H. Marenberg-- MarenbergD@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendants Vision Service Plan, VSP Ventures, LLC, VSP Ventures Management Services, LLC, and VSP Ventures Optometric Solutions, LLC. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS, GROSSMAN, PLLC, Heather Lopez, John J. Nelson-- jnelson@milberg.com -- San Diego, CA, Heather Lopez -- hlopez@milberg.com -- American Canyon, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Brian Tash. WELLNESS TOGETHER: Neeley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellness Together. The case is styled as Janelle Neeley, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Wellness Together, Case No. 25CV000155 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 18, 2025). Wellness Together -- https://www.wellnesstogether.org/ -- is a non-profit organization that engages in mental healthcare and therapy services to students in colleges and schools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com WHITE KNIGHT PEST: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WHITE KNIGHT PEST CONTROL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00932 (W.D. Tex., June 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay proper wages under the FLSA. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff or other Technicians for performing pest control services. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff or other Technicians for their drive time before, after or between performing services for the Defendant's customers. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff or other Technicians for time spent at the Defendant's office to pick up materials needed to perform services for Defendant's customers. The Plaintiff regularly worked over forty hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendant. Upon information and belief, other Technicians also regularly or occasionally worked over forty hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendant. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff or other Technicians 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Technician from May of 2018 until December of 2024. The Defendant's primary business is to provide pest control services to its customers, and Defendant employs technicians to accomplish this purpose.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy Ste 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 Email: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com - and - Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Ste. 510 Little Rock, AK 72211 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com WOOT SERVICES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WOOT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a WOOT.COM LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-02518-JRT-ECW (D. Minn., June 17, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.woot.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers discounted and refurbished items for sale, including but not limited to, electronics, home décor, appliances, computers, tools, garden supplies, sports recreation supplies, food, personal products, clothing and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE: Arthur Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Adult Institute, Inc. The case is styled as Wesley Arthur, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Young Adult Institute, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0008482 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Young Adult Institute also known as YAI -- https://www.yai.org/ -- is an organization serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***