250707.mbx

250707.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 7, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 134 Headlines 2390 CRESTON: Wins Bid to Dismiss Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit 3M COMPANY: Salzman Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 58 EAST COLORADO: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ACE AMERICAN: Court Denies Bid to Question Deponents in Hearst Suit AFLAC INC: Sued Over Failure to Implement Data Security Practices ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Motion to Seal Exhibits in Chavez Suit Denied AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Proffitt Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Stuart Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. APPLE INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Gamboa Suit AT&T INC: N.D. Texas Dismisses Securities Suit Without Prejudice AUTOMATIC DATA: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Ylitalo Securities Suit BAD BIRDIE: Harvey Suit Removed to D. Arizona BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Seal Portions of Class Cert Order OK'd BECTON DICKINSON: $9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 11 BELK INC: McBride Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina BETTER LIVING: Rice Products Contain Heavy Metals, Tomassian Says BOND AUTO SALES: Rose Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. BOSTON MSA MULTIFAMILY: Mariano Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. CADENCE BANK: Settlement in Self, et al. Suit Gets Final Court Nod CADENSE INC: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Court Stays RA Capital Securities Lawsuit CIGNA HEALTH: Proposed Discovery Plan in Rasin Suit Granted in Part CITY WINERY: Lugo Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bartenders/Servers CLEAN HARBORS: Velasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CLIN-PATH ASSOCIATES: Peterson-Sportsman Balks at Unprotected Info COMMERCIAL FITNESS: Benton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation CONNEXION POINT: Cruz Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action COOPER INTERCONNECT: Class Settlement in Ott Suit Gets Initial Nod COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania CORNERSTONE CAREGIVING: Alioto Sues Over Unlawful Timekeeping COSTA DEL MAR: Court Tosses Smith MMWA Suit Without Prejudice COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 27, 2026 COWAY USA INC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CROWDVEST LLC: Bid to Extend Time to File Class Cert Partly OK'd CSX TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Blanton FMLA Lawsuit CUSTOM STONESCAPING: Pineda Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay Wages DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Violates Inmates' Civil Rights, Noriega Claims DANISH BAKE NYC: Liz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DENTSPLY SIRONA: $84MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 10 DOLLAR TREE: Godines Suit Removed to E.D. California EMBLEMHEALTH SERVICES: Ruggles Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ERIE INDEMNITY: Smith Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ERIE INDEMNITY: Walker Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY: Tarr Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ESTRIN/HINDS CONSTRUCTION: Morataya Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FCA US: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to March 11, 2026 FEDERAL RESERVE: District of Columbia Dismisses Emrit Class Suit GAMEDAY SPIRIT: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Easily Stolen Trucks GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Hecht Suit Over Sale of Defective Vehicles GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Markus Suit Over Vehicles' Engine Defect GENOMIC HEALTH: Atienza Suit Removed to N.D. California GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Brewton Files Suit in D. New Jersey GOHEALTH INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims GOOGLE LLC: Court Excludes CEO as Trial Witness in Rodriguez Suit GPF FOOTWEAR LLC: Galicia Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California HAMILTON BEACH: Wins Bid to Dismiss Borowsky Product Warranty Suit HARPER WOODS, MI: 32A District Court's Rule 12(b)(1) Motion Timely HEALTH CARE: Seeks Leave for Reconsideration of Class Cert Order HIGH 5 GAMES: Court Narrows Claims in Larsen Lawsuit HYATT CORPORATION: Mayfield Suit Removed to E.D. California I3 VERTICALS: Hess Suit Removed to E.D. New York INSCIENCE SOLUTIONS: Plascencia Sues Over Deceptive Protein Claims INTER-CON SECURITY: Court Enters Discovery Order in Rodriguez Suit INTERPRIVATE ACQUISITION: $14MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 12 IQ DATA: Must Comply with Discovery Order in Nelson FDCPA Suit JB HUNT: Class Settlement in Taylor Gets Prelim. Approval JB HUNT: Settlement in Taylor FCRA Suit Gets Preliminary Court OK JJ'S WASTE: Bell Sues Over to Recover Overtime Wages JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wins Bid to Dismiss Okeechobee TCPA Lawsuit JOSHUA KAUL: Court Tosses Vales Probation Suit Without Prejudice JOSIE MARAN: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Fagnani Alleges JPMORGAN CHASE: Palladino Appeals Reconsideration Order to 2nd Cir. KENNECOTT UTAH: Bascom Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages KEVIN COPPINGER: Class Cert Responses in Caron Due Sept. 8 KEVIN COPPINGER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Wages KNESKO LLC: Fagnani Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers KRISPY KREME: Banks Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII KRISPY KREME: Bobo Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII & PHI KRISPY KREME: Bogan Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII KRISPY KREME: Peace Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII L&M LOGISTICS: Pena Suit Removed to C.D. California LAKEVIEW LOAN: Idris Sues Over Disclosed Clients' Info to 3rd Party LEAFFILTER NORTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Reussow Says LEE ENTERPRISES: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Suit for $9.5MM LIME ROCK: Chastain, et al. Case to Remain in Federal Court LINDE INC: Court Stays Townsend Class Action LITTLE LOTUS: Liu Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages LOVE'S COUNTRY STORES: Wortham Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MACK TRUCKS: Bennett Sues Over Unpaid Proper Wages MADSEN PRODUCTS: Villalobos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MALLINCKRODT PLC: $5.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 9 MARK INSERRA: Pagano Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Wages MAUI BABE INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MCLEAN MORTGAGE: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Knight Suit Says MCLEAN MORTGAGE: Parks Files Suit in E.D. Virginia MEDICARE HEALTH: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Hoy Claims METROMONT LLC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to W.D. Michigan MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Ivy Suit Removed to E.D. California MONTEREY MECHANICAL: Higgs Suit Removed to N.D. California MOTT OPTICAL: Appeals Denied ADA Suit Dismissal Bid to 2nd Circuit MOUNT ROGERS COMMUNITY: T.H. Files Suit in W.D. Virginia MRSS INC: Bemis Files Suit in N.D. Georgia MRSS INC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Addictive Dietary Supplements N.C.W.C. INC: Mitchell Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida NATIONAL MORTGAGE: Dismissal of Kovachevich's HPA Claim Affirmed NEIL JONES: Court Refuses to Strike Vallejo's Class Allegations NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.9MM NEW YORK: Koppel Sues Over Students and Employees' Compromised Info NISSAN NORTH: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court NORTHWEST PALLET: Obtains Defense-Favorable Verdict in Labor Suit OPENAI INC: Court Issues Discovery Order in Copyright Lawsuit PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Settlement in Felipe Suit Gets Prelim. Court OK QUALITY CARRIER: Class Action Waivers Enforceable, Court Rules REDDIT INC: Mislead Investors with False Reports, Tamraz Suit Says SAN JUANA: Parking Lot Not ADA Compliant, Suarez Suit Says SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit SCHNADER HARRISON: Bennett Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SENTARA HEALTH: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Guerrero Says SL GREEN: Wins Bid Arbitrate Claims in Newman Lawsuit SOUTHERLAND: Wennerstein Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action STARBUCKS CORP: Bollinger, et al. Suit Voluntarily Dismissed STEPHEN M. SCHERR: Court Consolidates Two Related Shareholder Cases SUNOCO PIPELINE: E.D. Pennsylvania Remands La Hart to State Court SURGALIGN HOLDINGS: Fair Fund Claims Bar Date Set for Oct. 25 TASKUS INC: Settlement in Lozada Suit Gets Preliminary Approval TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Conspires to Delay Entry of Generic Drugs TIM HORTONS: Class Suit Over "Roll Up to Win" Ads Gets Court OK TORRID LLC: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Class Suit for $13.8MM TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Electric Vehicles TRACTOR SUPPLY: Wins Bid to Transfer Keesler Case to Tennessee TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Katz Sues Over Breach of Insurance Contract ULTRA CLEAN: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Schweiger Securities Suit UNCHARTED LABS: Justice Sues Over Copyrighted Songs' Infringement UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Birthright Citizenship Order UNITED STATES: Orr Appeals Motion to Stay Ruling to 1st Circuit UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Football Coach Added to Hacking Class Suit VICTORIA'S SECRET: Court Allows Lead Plaintiff Substitution WALDORF=ASTORIA MGMT: Partial Bid to Dismiss Bolos Suit Denied WBY INC: Appeals Attorney Fee Judgment in Barker Suit to 11th Cir. WEAR PACT: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Johnston Alleges WINCUP INC: Heavey False Advertising Suit Remanded to State Court YOSEFARIEL INC: Parking Lot Not ADA Compliant, Suarez Says ********* 2390 CRESTON: Wins Bid to Dismiss Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nelson S. Roman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as ERNESTO GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 2390 CRESTON REALTY LLC, 2390 C LLC, and DENALI MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-01129-NSR (S.D.N.Y.). In this putative collective and class action, Plaintiff Ernesto Garcia, a former superintendent for a residential building, brings wage-and-hour and recordkeeping claims against his former employers Defendants 2390 C LLC and Denali Management Inc. Plaintiff asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201 et seq. and the New York Labor Law Secs. 190 et seq., Secs. 650 et seq. From Feb. 2019 until Sept. 26, 2022, Plaintiff worked as a superintendent at 2390 Creston Avenue, Bronx, New York 10468. Plaintiff avers that at all relevant times Defendant 2390 C LLC and Defendant Denali Management Inc. possess or possessed operational control over him and similarly situated employees. Plaintiff commenced the action on Feb. 9, 2023. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all other and former employees of Defendants. He alleges Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the FLSA and NYLL by: (1) failing to pay employees minimum and overtime wage hours for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; (2) failing to keep records that satisfy statutory requirements; and (3) failing to provide employees wage statements and annual pay notices. On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed the SAC. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to plausibly plead a given week in which he worked in excess of 40 hours. Because the Court, when drawing on its own judicial experience and common sense, is unable to determine that Plaintiff has worked in excess of 40 hours in a given week, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claim for violations of the FLSA's overtime requirement without prejudice. Plaintiff has only provided the Court with threadbare pleadings that lack any factual support for his FLSA recordkeeping claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim for violations of FLSA's recordkeeping requirement is dismissed with prejudice. The Court will not disregard the facts as alleged in the SAC, but because Plaintiff has failed to allege a FLSA claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims. The Court rules as follows: Plaintiff's claims related to unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's claims related to recordkeeping violations under the FLSA are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's claims under the NYLL are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint by July 17, 2025. Plaintiff is advised that the Third Amended Complaint will replace, not supplement, the Amended Complaint, and so any claims that they wish to pursue must be included in, or attached to, the Third Amended Complaint. Should Plaintiff file a Third Amended Complaint, Defendants are directed to answer or otherwise respond by July 31, 2025. If Plaintiff fails to file a Third Amended Complaint within the time allowed, those claims that were dismissed without prejudice will be deemed dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GgzHQS from PacerMonitor.com. 3M COMPANY: Salzman Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hal Salzman, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M Company et al, Case No. 1:25-cv-10899 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06132-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leah M. McMorris, Esq. THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP 84 State St., 4th Fl. Boston, MA 02019 Phone: (671) 720-1333 Email: lmcmorris@tenlaw.com 58 EAST COLORADO: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 58 East Colorado Corporation. The case is styled as Martin Mendoza, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 58 East Colorado Corporation a/k/a Natalee Thai, Case No. 25STCV18218 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." 58 East Colorado Corporation also known as Natalee Thai -- http://www.nataleethai.com/-- is an authentic Thai restaurant offering traditional Thai dishes, a pleasant dining atmosphere, and friendly staff.[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 ACE AMERICAN: Court Denies Bid to Question Deponents in Hearst Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Defendant's request to question deponents about the Greenberg Traurig reports in the lawsuit entitled THE HEARST CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06890-MKV (S.D.N.Y.). The action was removed to this Court from New York State Supreme Court, New York County, and thereafter the Defendant answered the Complaint. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant breached a cyber liability insurance policy, which covered the Plaintiff's subsidiary when it refused to pay an $8.8 million class action settlement of an underlying action related to an alleged cyber breach. At a prior status conference, the Court resolved several of the parties' discovery disputes. At the conference and in a subsequent order, the Court ordered the parties to (1) provide the Court with the parties' common interest agreement ("CIA" or "Agreement") and (2) each file a letter explaining its position on whether the Defendant may question deponents about reports Greenberg Traurig provided contemporaneously to the Defendant in the underlying lawsuit pursuant to the CIA, over which the Plaintiff claims attorney-client privilege. The Court thoroughly reviewed the parties' submissions. Under the CIA, "the Privileged Materials will be used only for the purposes of this Agreement." The CIA explains that "the purpose of this Agreement is to enable the Parties to exchange necessary information in order to further the common interests of the Parties in the effective defense, resolution, navigation, and processing of the Litigations and Data Security Issue and in order to evaluate the Litigations and Data Security Issue and any request for reimbursement by Hearst." Litigation between the parties is not within the express purpose of the CIA and, accordingly, Judge Vyskocil finds that the Defendant may not question deponents about the Greenberg Traurig reports and its request to do so is, therefore, denied. The Court reminds the parties that failure to comply with this Order or with any order of the Court or failure to comply with the FRCP, the Local Rules for the SDNY or this Court's Individual Practice Rules, or the parties' discovery or other obligations may result in sanctions, including monetary penalties on counsel and/or the parties, dismissal or preclusion of claims, defenses, arguments, or evidence. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2wnbv359 from PacerMonitor.com. AFLAC INC: Sued Over Failure to Implement Data Security Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- L.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, Case No. 4:25-cv-00197-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 24, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise sensitive information entrusted to Defendant (the "Data Breach") that, upon information and belief, contained personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") and protected health information ("PHI", and collectively with "PII", "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other individuals ("the Class"), that was compromised in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach") in June 2025. Recently, Defendant began sending out notice emails to customers informing them about the Data Breach. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to adequate and reasonable cyber security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information which it was hired to protect. The mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Plaintiff and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to guard against identity theft. As a result of Defendant's unreasonable and inadequate data security practices, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been exposed to criminals for misuse. The Defendant provides financial protection to millions of policyholders and customers through its subsidiaries in the U.S. and Japan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4729 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Phone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Sharon J. Zinns, Esq. ZINNS LAW, LLC 4243 Dunwoody Club Drive, Suite 104 Atlanta, GA 30350 Phone: (404) 882-9002 Email: sharon@zinnslaw.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Motion to Seal Exhibits in Chavez Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied without prejudice the plaintiff's motion to seal in the case captioned as MINERVA CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.: 22-cv-00166-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.). On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to file under seal documents in support of her opposition to Allstate's motion for summary judgment. On April 9, 2025, Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company filed a Notice of Non-Opposition and Joinder. Plaintiff moves to seal portions of four exhibits (Exhibits 1, 6–8), and the entirety of eight exhibits (Exhibits 2, 10–15, 17) containing information Allstate designated confidential pursuant to the Protective Order in this case. Plaintiff also filed a redacted version of her opposition brief to Allstate's motion for summary judgment, which she also filed under seal, but which is not addressed in either Plaintiffs' motion to seal or Allstate's joinder brief. A. Plaintiff's Exhibits 1, 6-8 Plaintiff's Exhibits 1, 6, 7, and 8 are all declarations of Allan I. Schwartz, Plaintiff's retained expert, which Plaintiff represents contain references to documents that Allstate designated as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order. However, in violation of the Civil Case Procedures of the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, U.S. District Judge, and the law of this Circuit, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant Allstate make a particularized showing of compelling reasons -- supported by factual evidence -- to seal Exhibits 1, 6, 7, and 8, the Court finds. Plaintiff and Defendant also fail to identify a specific harm that would be caused by the public disclosure of these particular documents. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to seal Exhibits 1, 6, 7, and 8. B. Plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 10-15, 17 Plaintiff and Defendant seek to seal the entirety of Plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 10-15, and 17. In its non-opposition and joinder brief, Allstate indicates that Exhibits 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 include highly sensitive and competitive business information and sensitive information not available to its competitors that includes profits, costs, and margins data. Allstate also indicates that Exhibits 2, 14, 15, and 17 include specific communications with the California Department of Insurance. The Court finds Allstate has not demonstrated that the information it seeks to maintain under seal is narrowly tailored to satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard. Additionally, Allstate has not provided the Court with a particularized showing of compelling reasons, supported by factual evidence, to justify the sealing of each of the exhibits it seeks to maintain under seal. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice the motion to seal Plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17. C. Redactions in Plaintiff's Opposition to Allstate's Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's publicly filed opposition brief to Allstate's motion for summary judgment contains redactions, presumably of information contained in the exhibits Plaintiff provisionally filed under seal. Neither Plaintiff, nor Allstate, provides any reason, let alone a compelling one, for why the redacted information in Plaintiff's opposition brief should remain under seal. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice the motion to seal to the extent it applies to the redactions 1n Plaintiff's opposition brief to Allstate's motion for summary judgment. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KXpJJw from PacerMonitor.com. AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Proffitt Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MARTHA PROFFITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY GROUP, INC., doing business as ESSE HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 25SL-CC05304, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 18, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00884 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges claims for negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count III), breach of implied contract (Count IV), breach of confidence (Count V), and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (Count VI) against Esse Health based on allegations that Plaintiff's private information, and the private information of the putative class, was compromised as a result of a cybersecurity event. American Multispecialty Group, Inc., doing business as Esse Health, provides health care services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: David M. Mangian, Esq. Adrian S. Mehdirad, Esq. One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6000 Facsimile: (314) 552 7000 E-mail: dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com amehdirad@thompsoncoburn.com AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Stuart Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled COLLEEN STUART, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY GROUP, INC., doing business as ESSE HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 25SL-CC00952, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 18, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00886 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges claims for negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), breach of implied contract (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), and declaratory and injunctive relief (Count V) against Esse Health based on allegations that Plaintiff's private information, and the private information of the putative class, was compromised as a result of a cybersecurity event. American Multispecialty Group, Inc., doing business as ESSE HEALTH, provides health care services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: David M. Mangian, Esq. Adrian S. Mehdirad, Esq. One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6000 Facsimile: (314) 552 7000 E-mail: dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com amehdirad@thompsoncoburn.com APPLE INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Gamboa Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eumi K. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint filed in the lawsuit captioned JULIANNA FELIX GAMBOA, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (N.D. Cal.). This antitrust action arises out of Defendant Apple Inc.'s restrictions that prevent third-party cloud storage providers from accessing certain files on iPhones and iPads. The Plaintiffs allege that these file restrictions prevent Apple's competitors from offering "full-service" cloud storage that can compete effectively with iCloud, Apple's own cloud storage service. The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint for failure to state a claim (Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss in Part (the "MTD Order")). In the second amended class action complaint (the "SAC"), Judge Lee notes that the Plaintiffs added substantial new allegations to address the pleading deficiencies that required dismissal of the prior complaint. Now before the Court is Apple's motion to dismiss. In the SAC, the Plaintiffs reassert the same two relevant product markets as before. The Plaintiffs allege a narrow market for "full-service" cloud storage on Apple mobile devices -- that is, cloud platforms that can host all file types. This proposed market contains just one product: iCloud. The Court previously held that the iCloud-only market was implausible because it "fails to include all economic substitutes for iCloud -- principally, cloud storage services offered by Apple's rivals." In the SAC, the Plaintiffs have added substantial new allegations regarding the importance to consumers of "full-service" cloud storage that can store all types of files, including restricted files. These allegations draw from an expert report that Apple relied upon in unrelated litigation involving iCloud. The Plaintiffs allege that cloud storage offers key features valued by consumers that local storage does not offer, including the fact that cloud storage can automatically backup data without any action by the user, whereas local storage is a manual process and, therefore, less convenient. The Court finds that it would be premature at this stage to conclude that the Plaintiffs' proposed market is "facially unsustainable" because it excludes local storage. Although a relevant market may include differentiated products, Judge Lee opines that the degree of substitutability between cloud storage and local storage is a factual question that must be decided on a more complete record. Accordingly, the Court denies Apple's motion to dismiss for lack of a relevant market. Judge Lee finds that the Plaintiffs plausibly allege Apple's monopoly power through indirect evidence -- that is, high market share, barriers to entry, and barriers to expansion. In sum, the Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Apple has monopoly power in the claimed relevant market for all cloud storage on Apple mobile devices. Accordingly, the Court denies Apple's motion to dismiss for lack of monopoly power. Judge Lee also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs plausibly allege their monopolization claim (Count 1) based on allegations of tying, and they plausibly allege a Section 2 tying claim (Count 3) based on the same allegations. The Plaintiffs also plausibly allege that Apple has attempted to monopolize the market for cloud storage on Apple mobile devices. Accordingly, Apple's motion to dismiss for lack of anticompetitive conduct is denied. Judge Lee holds that it would be premature to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims as time-barred because it is unclear when the Plaintiffs' claims accrued and whether Apple engaged in a continuing antitrust violation. However, the Court again raises its concerns with the Plaintiffs' alternate theory as the parties continue to engage in discovery. For these reasons, the Court denies Apple's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Apple will file an answer to the second amended complaint within 21 days of this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4cz8etkk from PacerMonitor.com. AT&T INC: N.D. Texas Dismisses Securities Suit Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled IN RE AT&T INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-01196-N (N.D. Tex.). The motion was filed by Defendants AT&T Inc., Randall Stephenson, John Stankey, Pascal Desroches, John Stephens, and Jeffrey McElfresh. Because the Court concludes that Lead Plaintiffs Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York, New York City Employees Retirement System, New York City Police Pension Fund, New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, and Board of Education Retirement System of the City of New York have failed to state a claim under the rigorous requirements of the Public Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the Court grants the motion and dismisses all claims without prejudice. The Court further grants Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint within 30 days of this Order. The lawsuit is a putative class action under federal securities law on behalf of all persons and entities, other than the Defendants, that purchased or otherwise acquired AT&T Inc. ("AT&T") securities between July 28, 2018, and July 26, 2023 (the "Class Period"). On July 9, 2023, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") published an expose titled "America Is Wrapped in Miles of Toxic Lead Cables" that stated "AT&T, Verizon and other telecom giants have left behind a sprawling network of cables covered in toxic lead . . . . As the lead degrades, it is ending up in places where Americans live, work and play." The story further reported that the telecom companies knew about the lead cables, their risks, and the potential for lead to leach into the environment but failed to act on these potential risks or take efforts to monitor the cables. AT&T stock fell 2.18% the day after the WSJ story first broke. After additional reporting raised alarm over AT&T's potential exposure for the lead cables, AT&T stock further declined to its lowest level since March 1993. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against AT&T and several of its executives. The Plaintiffs allege that various statements about AT&T's efforts to retire its old telecom lines were materially false or misleading as to the risks AT&T faced from this widespread and deteriorating network of lead-lined cables. The Plaintiffs also assert a claim under Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act against Individual Defendants Stephenson, Stankey, Stephens, Desroches, and McElfresh as control persons of AT&T. Over the course of the class period, the Defendants made several statements about how retiring the old copper transmission lines would help reduce costs. The Plaintiffs contend these statements are false or materially misleading in that they fail to apprise investors of the fact that AT&T's shutdown strategy, involving leaving lead-lined wires in place, was likely to expose AT&T to significant and costly scrutiny, liability, and reputational harm. The Plaintiffs also contend, among other things, that the Defendants' statements about AT&T's commitment to responsible waste management are false or materially misleading because they fail to disclose the existence of the lead-lined cables, that they are being left in place, and that they are known to leach lead into the environment. The Defendants now move to dismiss all claims against them for failure to state a claim. The Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss because the Plaintiffs' allegations fail to create a strong inference of scienter, the allegations of motive are insufficient to establish scienter and the allegations about each Individual Defendant fail to establish scienter. The Court also finds, among other things, that many of the challenged statements are not sufficiently forward looking to trigger the safe harbor. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismisses all of the Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice. The Court further grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. If the Plaintiffs do not amend their complaint within 30 days, the Court will dismiss all claims with prejudice without further notice. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5cvsta65 from PacerMonitor.com. AUTOMATIC DATA: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Ylitalo Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jamel K. Semper of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Dale Ylitalo's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of counsel in the case captioned as DALE YLITALO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC., ADP, INC., and AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENTS SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07635-JKS-LDW (D.N.J.). This is a putative federal securities class action brought on behalf of all those who own and operate their own business who purchased or otherwise acquired for themselves a SIMPLE IRA from Defendant ADP from July 9, 2024 to three years prior (the "Class Period"), the funds for which were directed into one of ACI's One Choice Target Date Portfolios at the time of sale of the SIMPLE IRA (the "Class"). This action is brought on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, in addition to claims arising under Florida and New Jersey law violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, in addition to claims arising under Florida and New Jersey law. On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff Dale Ylitalo filed the Complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Ylitalo then filed a motion to appoint lead plaintiff and approval of counsel. Ylitalo's Motion is unchallenged by the other Class members. Defendants jointly filed a response to the Motion, raising a number of issues regarding Plaintiff's adequacy to serve as lead Plaintiff. Ylitalo invested about $1,716.94 into approximately 137.139 shares of ACI's mutual funds. He appears to claim that this investment is a loss because he would not have purchased the SIMPLE IRA, the funds for which were immediately invested in ACI's mutual funds, had he known of Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions. Although $1,716.94 is a minimal amount, the Court takes into consideration the allegation that the class members consist exclusively of business owners. In other words, it is not likely that the Class includes institutional investors, the preferred lead Plaintiffs in securities class actions. In their response, Defendants note that Ylitalo has not actually alleged any losses under federal securities laws. The Court finds Ylitalo has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class and will be the presumptive most adequate plaintiff if he otherwise satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. According to the Court, Ylitalo's claims are based on the same legal theory and arise from the same events and course of conduct as the claims of the Class. As Ylitalo explains in his papers, like all members of the class, he alleges that Defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating materially misleading statements, including misrepresentations and omissions regarding ADP's sales representatives licenses, registrations, compensation, and sale incentives and the SIMPLE IRAs' return rates. Ylitalo also alleges that his losses, like the losses suffered by other members of the Class, arose from Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions. In the Complaint, Ylitalo further alleges that Defendants' policies apply to and affect Class members uniformly. At this stage of appointing lead plaintiff pursuant to the PSLRA, the Court finds that Ylitalo satisfies Rule 23's typicality requirement. The Court emphasizes that Ylitalo like the other members of the proposed class, seeks to recover the losses he allegedly incurred as a result of Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions. Additionally, Ylitalo has represented that he is interested in vigorously pursuing this action and has retained counsel experienced in complex class action litigation. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a conflict between Ylitalo's claims and those of the purported class. At this stage of appointing lead plaintiff pursuant to the PSLRA, the Court finds Ylitalo satisfies Rule 23's adequacy requirement, the Court finds. Presently, there are no challenges by other Class members to the appointment of Ylitalo as lead plaintiff. Accordingly, the presumption of adequacy stands. Defendants, however, argue in their Response that Ylitalo's PSLRA certification is false and thus disqualifies him from serving as lead plaintiff. On June 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended PSLRA Certification that includes all securities actions in the past three years in which Plaintiff was a named plaintiff and/or class representative, regardless of whether Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff in the action. The Court is satisfied by Plaintiff's submission of the Amended PSLRA Certification and finds it sufficient to proceed under the circumstances. The Court concludes in sum, Ylitalo appears to have the largest financial interest, satisfied the Rule 23 requirements, and filed a timely motion. The presumption that Ylitalo is the most adequate plaintiff has not been rebutted by any Class members. For these reasons, the Court will appoint Ylitalo as lead plaintiff, and his motion to appoint lead plaintiff is granted. Because the Court finds Ylitalo to be the most adequate plaintiff, this task falls to him. Ylitalo moves for approval of Federman & Sherwood as Lead Counsel, and Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. as Liaison Counsel Ylitalo's chosen law firms have prosecuted securities class actions as well as other class actions. After reviewing the firms' resumes, the Court finds that both firms have experience litigating securities fraud class actions and are thus competent to fulfill the duties of lead counsel and liaison counsel. As a result, Ylitalo's motion to appoint lead counsel and liaison counsel is granted. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jY64lm from PacerMonitor.com. BAD BIRDIE: Harvey Suit Removed to D. Arizona --------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jace Harvey, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAD BIRDIE, LLC and REDO TECH, INC., Case No. CV2025-016678 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa, to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on June 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02159-ASB. The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of a putative class of "all consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action to the date of class certification, paid a Free Unlimited Returns fee or other similar fee for a service provided by Redo (the "Redo Class")."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael A. Calvanico, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 47th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 229-9500 Email: mcalvanico@mayerbrown.com BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Seal Portions of Class Cert Order OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting motion to seal portions of class certification order. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2EVj1H at no extra charge.[CC] BECTON DICKINSON: $9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER ACTION TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY. ("BD") COMMON STOCK AS OF JUNE 5, 2025, EXCLUDING THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF BD, MEMBERS OF THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES, AND ANY ENTITY IN WHICH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS HAVE OR HAD A CONTROLLING INTEREST ("CURRENT BD STOCKHOLDERS"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION, CURRENT STOCKHOLDERS OF BD WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS. THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT. THE COURT HAS MADE NO FINDINGS OR DETERMINATIONS RESPECTING THE MERITS OF THE ACTION. THE RECITATION OF THE BACKGROUND AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SETTLEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order from the Honorable U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Courtroom 2 at the Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07102 (the "Court"), that a proposed settlement agreement has been reached among (i) Plaintiffs,1 on behalf of themselves and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant BD, (ii) BD, and (iii) defendants Vincent A. Forlenza, Thomas E. Polen, Christopher R. Reidy, Catherine M. Burzik, R. Andrew Eckert, Claire M. Fraser, Jeffrey W. Henderson, Christopher Jones, Marshall O. Larsen, David F. Melcher, Claire Pomeroy, Rebecca W. Rimel, Timothy M. Ring, and Bertram L. Scott (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") in connection with the above-captioned stockholder derivative action (the "Consolidated Federal Derivative Action") and the substantially similar actions set forth in the Stipulation (collectively, the "Derivative Actions"). Plaintiffs filed the Derivative Actions, including the actions comprising the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action, derivatively on behalf of BD alleging harm caused to the Company by the Individual Defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and other alleged conduct. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, would fully, finally and forever resolve the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action and all claims asserted therein (and/or in any related action) on the terms set forth in the Stipulation and summarized in this Notice, including dismissal of the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action with prejudice. As explained below, a Settlement Hearing will be held in this Court on August 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., before the U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Courtroom 2 at the Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07102, to determine: (i) whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation are fair, reasonable, and adequate to BD and Current BD Stockholders2 and should be approved by the Court; (ii) whether the [Proposed] Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal approving the Settlement, substantially in the form of Exhibit C attached to the Stipulation, should be entered, dismissing the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action with prejudice and releasing, and enjoining the prosecution of, any and all Released Claims; and (iii) whether the Fee and Expense Amount to Plaintiffs' Counsel and any Service Awards to Plaintiffs to be paid therefrom, should be approved. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court may also hear or consider such other matters as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. You have the right to object to the Settlement, the Fee and Expense Amount, and any Service Awards in the manner provided herein. If you fail to object in the manner provided herein at least fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing, you will be deemed to have waived your objections and will forever be foreclosed from making any objection to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement or the Fee and Expense Amount, including any Service Awards, as set forth in the Stipulation, and will be forever bound by the Judgment to be entered, the dismissal of the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action and the claims asserted therein with prejudice, and any and all of the releases set forth in the Stipulation. This Notice is not intended to be and should not be construed as an expression of any opinion by the Court with respect to the merits of the claims made in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action; this Notice is merely to advise you of the proposed Settlement and of your rights as a Current BD Stockholder. I. BACKGROUND A. Summary of Plaintiffs' Allegations and Claims The Derivative Actions allege that the Individual Defendants failed to fulfil their fiduciary duties by, among other things, making certain allegedly false and misleading statements to stockholders between November 5, 2019 and February 5, 2020, regarding the extent of software defects and modifications in BD's Alaris infusion pump system ("Alaris" or the "Alaris System"), ongoing scrutiny of the device by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), and the potential corresponding impact on the Company's financial position. Plaintiffs further allege that such misstatements artificially inflated the Company's stock price during that time period and harmed the Company by causing it to incur legal and regulatory liability. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that certain of BD's officers and directors sold BD stock at artificially inflated prices based material non-public information regarding Alaris. Defendants deny these allegations and claims in their entirety, including as set forth below. B.The Consolidated Federal Derivative Action In April and May of 2020, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action sent litigation demands to the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") pursuant to New Jersey law, demanding, among other things, that the Board take all necessary steps to investigate, address, and promptly remedy the alleged harm to the Company resulting from the above alleged misconduct. On October 14, 2020, BD informed counsel for the Federal Derivative Plaintiffs that the Board had formed a special committee (the "Special Committee") to conduct an investigation into the allegations underlying the demands. On November 2, 2020, plaintiff Jankowski filed a shareholder derivative complaint in this Court, captioned, Jankowski v. Forlenza, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-15474 ("Jankowski"), against certain of the Company's officers and directors, naming the Company as nominal defendant and alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and insider selling under New Jersey law, contribution under the Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, insider selling and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 25, 2020, the Court entered a stipulation and order staying proceedings in the Jankowski Action pending the Board's formal response to plaintiff Jankowski's demand. On January 24, 2021, plaintiff Schranz filed a substantially similar shareholder derivative complaint in this Court, captioned, Schranz v. Polen, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-010812 (the "Schranz Action"), against certain of the Company's officers and directors, naming the Company as nominal defendant and asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment under New Jersey law. On February 5, 2021, the Court entered a stipulated order consolidating the Jankowski Action and the Schranz Action, which, among other things, subjected the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action to the Jankowski Action stay order and appointed co-lead and co-liaison counsel. On March 1, 2021, and April 20, 2021, the Company provided counsel to the Federal Derivative Plaintiffs with Board resolutions adopted following the Special Committee's investigation that, among other things, refused the demands and declined to have the Company pursue any of the claims contemplated thereby, and requested that the Federal Derivative Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims. Thereafter, the Federal Derivative Plaintiffs requested additional information and documentation and, on July 30, 2021, after entering into confidentiality and use agreements, the Company provided the Federal Derivative Plaintiffs with certain additional information and documentation, including resolutions of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee of the Board recommending the creation of the Special Committee, the Board's resolutions forming the Special Committee, independent director questionnaires for the Special Committee members, and redacted versions of the Special Committee's final reports to the Board. On May 5, 2023, Federal Derivative Plaintiffs requested further documents and information. After the parties to the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action filed a joint letter with the Court outlining their respective positions regarding additional document production, the Court set a hearing date for August 2023, which was thereafter adjourned in light of a then-upcoming mediation in the related federal securities class action captioned, Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., No. 2:20-cv-02155 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2020) (the "Securities Class Action"). Following status conferences with the Court in September and October of 2023, the parties to the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action entered a stipulation providing for the Federal Derivative Plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint and a briefing schedule for Defendants' motion to dismiss and any associated discovery motion by the Federal Derivative Plaintiffs. Following an agreement in principle to resolve the Securities Class Action, the parties to the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action agreed to explore the possibility of mediation and, on November 1, 2023, filed a stipulation, subsequently so-ordered by the Court, adjourning the previously entered case schedule without date and providing for a status report within 45 days. The parties to the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action thereafter provided periodic updates to the Court and, on May 13, 2024, notified the Court that they had agreed in principle to mediate. C.The Consolidated State Court Action In March 2021, Shiva Stein ("Stein") sent a litigation demand to the Board under New Jersey law, based on substantially the same facts as the Federal Derivative Plaintiffs' demands. On April 20, 2021, counsel for Stein received a letter from counsel for the Special Committee refusing Stein's litigation demand in its entirety. On April 29, 2021, Stein issued an inspection demand to the Company pursuant to N.J. Rev. Stat. §14A:5-28, seeking production of certain corporate books and records related to and reflecting the Board's and/or the Special Committee's evaluation and rejection of Stein's litigation demand (the "Inspection Request"). On July 30, 2021, the Company produced certain documents in response to the Inspection Request (the "§14A:5-28 Production"), which counsel for Stein reviewed and analyzed. On January 10, 2023, Stein filed a shareholder derivative action in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County vicinage (the "New Jersey State Court"), captioned Stein v. Burzik, et al., Case No. BER-C-000156-23 (the "Stein Action"), asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Individual Defendants under New Jersey law. The Stein Action further alleged, based on the §14A:5-28 Production, that the Board and/or Special Committee had wrongfully refused Stein's litigation demand. On April 11, 2023, the parties to the Stein Action filed a joint stipulation to stay further proceedings pending certain developments in the Securities Class Action and/or Consolidated Federal Derivative Action, which was so-ordered by the New Jersey State Court on April 28, 2023. On September 10, 2024, plaintiff Lotz made a litigation demand on the Board under New Jersey law based on substantially the same facts as the Federal Derivative Plaintiffs' and Stein's litigation demands. On September 26, 2024, the State Court Plaintiff filed a shareholder derivative complaint (substantially similar to those filed in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action and the Stein Action) in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey , Bergen County vicinage, captioned Lotz v. Burzik, et al., Case No. BER-C-000174-24 (the "Lotz Action"). The Stein Action was thereafter marked administratively closed pursuant to stipulation of the parties and subsequently marked voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On or around December 4, 2024, the Lotz Action was transferred to the Law Division of the New Jersey StateCourt and consolidated with the dismissed Stein Action under a new consolidated docket number (CONSOLIDATED CASE BER-L -007001-24), thus forming the Consolidated State Court Action.3 On May 27, 2025, the Consolidated State Court Action was stayed pending the filing of a notice of settlement in the Consolidated State Court Action. D.The Securities Class Action The Securities Class Action was filed in this Court on February 27, 2020, against the Company and certain of its officers for alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule l0b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with a February 2020 stock drop following the announcement of an adverse FDA determination. On December 19, 2023, the parties in the Securities Class Action entered into a stipulation of settlement with full releases for all defendants and no admission or concession of any liability whatsoever. The cash payment to the settlement class in the Securities Class Action was funded with proceeds from BD's directors' and officers' ("D&O") insurance, with no monetary outlay by the Company (above the self-insured retention) or any defendant. On April 22, 2024, the Court entered judgment granting lead plaintiff's motion for final approval of the Securities Class Action settlement, and dismissed the Securities Class Action with prejudice on April 26, 2024. E.Mediation and the Settlement On June 27, 2024, the Parties participated in a mediation session led by David M. Murphy of Phillips ADR Enterprises (the "Mediator"). Following the mediation, the Parties continued arm's-length settlement negotiations, both directly and with the Mediator, regarding the monetary component of any proposed settlement. The Parties ultimately accepted the Mediator's proposal with respect to a monetary payment to the Company by the Company's By virtue of their involvement in the Stein Action, counsel for the State Court Plaintiff coordinated their efforts with counsel for the Federal Derivative Plaintiffs regarding all aspects of mediation and settlement. D&O insurance carriers, and thereafter negotiated and reached agreement on the implementation of certain corporate governance modifications (the "Governance Modifications"), all as memorialized in a binding Settlement Term Sheet executed on November 29, 2024 (the "Term Sheet") and further documented in the Stipulation pursuant to the requirements of the Term Sheet. The Parties only commenced negotiations concerning the amount of attorneys' fees to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel after all material terms of the Settlement - including the substantive consideration for the Settlement - had been agreed upon. II.PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AND BENEFITS OF SETTLEMENT Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel contend that the allegations made in the Derivative Actions are supported by substantial evidence and that the claims asserted have merit. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have, however, taken into account the substantial time, expense, and uncertainty inherent in any attempt to improve upon the result through continued prosecution of the Derivative Actions through trial(s) and any subsequent appeals(s), including problems of proof, challenges in overcoming the many available defenses to the derivative claims, the Individual Defendants' advancement and indemnification rights, the amount, conditions, exclusions, and limitations on the available insurance, and the difficulties of proving and collecting any potential damages awarded at trial. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel are also mindful of the costs and disruption further litigation would impose on BD. Plaintiffs' Counsel's recommendation in favor of the Settlement is informed by, among other things: (i) review and analysis of BD's relevant press releases, public statements, and filings with the SEC, securities and financial analyst reports and advisories and business media reports about the Company in the course of preparing Plaintiffs' litigation demands, the Inspection Request, and Plaintiffs' complaints; (ii) analysis of the extensive fact and legal record reflected in the pleadings, motions, status reports, and orders filed in the related Securities Class Action; (iii) research and analysis of the law governing the claims, damages and other remedies, pleading standards, anticipated affirmative defenses and insurance and indemnification in connection with preparation of Plaintiffs' litigation demands, the Inspection Request, Plaintiffs' complaints, and settlement demands; (iv) evaluation of the record regarding the investigation of the matters raised in Plaintiffs' litigation demands and Board deliberations, including the §14A:5-28 Production; (v) evaluation of additional source materials relating to the Special Committee's investigation and Board deliberations produced in response to Plaintiffs' document requests; (vi) assessment of additional confidential information provided by Defendants in the course of the mediation relating to merits, insurance, and indemnification issues; (vii) evaluation of defense counsel's arguments and perspectives offered by the Mediator regarding certain factual allegations, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various claims and defenses, and problems of proof offered during the course of the mediation exchanges; (viii) research and analysis of the range of potential damages, disgorgement, and non-monetary remedies in connection with preparing the settlement demands and during the course of settlement negotiations; and (ix) review of the Company's existing corporate governance policies and preparation of proposed corporate governance revisions to strengthen the Company's governance. Plaintiffs carefully weighed the benefits of the Settlement against the significant risks, costs, and delay that would be entailed in attempting to secure a better result through further litigation. Based upon their investigation and evaluation of the relevant evidence, applicable procedural standards and substantive law, and their assessment of the best interests of BD and its stockholders, and informed by perspectives offered by the Mediator and the arguments and positions advanced by the Defendants during the mediation process and related negotiations, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have determined that the Settlement's immediate guarantee of a substantial monetary benefit to the Company, together with the substantial long-term benefits to be conferred by the Governance Modifications, is fair, reasonable and adequate consideration for the Settlement, and that the Settlement serves the best interests of BD and its stockholders. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that the proposed Settlement confers substantial benefits on BD and its stockholders, including the monetary benefit and the adoption of the Governance Modifications set forth in Exhibit A to the Stipulation. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that the terms of the Settlement directly address the claims at issue in the Derivative Actions. Additionally, the Company acknowledges that: (i) the initiation, pendency and settlement of the Derivative Actions (and the associated demands), and the Plaintiffs' efforts in connection therewith, were a material factor in the implementation of the Governance Modifications; and (ii) the Governance Modifications confer a material benefit on the Company. Further, the Company's Declaration attached as Exhibit A-1 to the Stipulation acknowledges that the Board, by unanimous resolution of its independent directors, made these and additional determinations in approving the Settlement. III.DEFENDANTS DENY ANY AND ALL WRONGDOING OR LIABILITY Each of the Defendants has expressly denied and continues to deny any fault, liability, or wrongdoing whatsoever as to any facts or claims alleged or asserted in the Derivative Actions, and all of the claims and contentions alleged, or which could have been alleged, therein or in similar such actions, including that BD has suffered damage by or as a result of the conduct alleged in the Derivative Actions or similar such actions. Nonetheless, in order to eliminate the burden, expense, and risks inherent in the litigation, Defendants have concluded that it is desirable that the Derivative Actions be fully and finally settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation. IV.THE SETTLEMENT HEARING A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") shall be held before this Court on August 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Courtroom 2 at the Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07102, to determine whether the Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to BD and its stockholders and should be approved by the Court; whether the [Proposed] Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal should be entered herein; and whether to approve the Fee and Expense Amount to Plaintiffs' Counsel and any Service Awards to Plaintiffs to be paid therefrom. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court may hear or consider such other matters as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. The Court may adjourn the date of the Settlement Hearing without further notice to Current BD Stockholders, and the Settlement Hearing may be continued by the Court at the Settlement Hearing, or at any adjourned session thereof, without further notice. Further, the Court may decide to approve the Settlement without a hearing and without further notice to BD stockholders or move the Settlement Hearing to Zoom or another similar virtual platform without further notice to BD stockholders. V.SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATION The terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement are set forth fully in the Stipulation. As a part of the proposed Settlement, Defendants shall cause their D&O insurance carriers to pay $9,000,000 to the Settlement Fund. In addition, BD has agreed that within sixty (60) days of the issuance of an order finally approving the settlement of the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action, BD will adopt certain corporate Governance Modifications, which BD shall maintain for a period of not less than four (4) years. After deducting and paying the Fee and Expense Amount and any Service Awards, as well as the costs of notice, out of the Settlement Fund, the balance of the Settlement Fund will be released to the Company. VI.DISMISSAL AND RELEASES In connection with the Court's approval of the Settlement, the Parties will request entry of the [Proposed] Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal by the Court, dismissing with prejudice all claims alleged in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action and any other Released Claims as defined in the Stipulation. Upon the Effective Date, the Releasing Parties (including BD) shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever settled, released, relinquished, discharged, extinguished, and dismissed with prejudice the Released Defendants Claims (including Unknown Claims) against the Released Defendant Parties and any and all claims arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the defense, settlement, or resolution of the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action against the Released Defendant Parties; provided, however, that such release shall not affect any claims to enforce the terms of the Stipulation or the Settlement. Upon the Effective Date, each of the Defendants shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel from all claims (including Unknown Claims), arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the institution, prosecution, assertion, settlement, or resolution of the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action or the Released Claims. The Effective Date is conditioned on the occurrence of certain events set forth in the Stipulation including, among others, the final dismissal with prejudice of the Derivative Actions that are not part of the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action. VII.ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES After negotiating the monetary relief for the Company and the Governance Modifications, Plaintiffs' Counsel and counsel for Defendants, with the assistance of the Mediator, separately negotiated with respect to the amount of the Fee and Expense Amount to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel, subject to Court approval. In connection with a motion for final approval of the Settlement, Plaintiffs' Counsel will request attorneys' fees and expenses of $3,470,000. Defendants agree to pay the Fee and Expense Amount, subject to Court approval. The Fee and Expense Amount shall constitute final and complete payment for Plaintiffs' Counsel's attorney's fees and expenses that have been incurred or will be incurred in connection with the Derivative Actions. Neither Defendants nor their insurers shall have any obligation or liability with respect to attorneys' fees, costs, or expenses beyond the amount approved by the Court in response to the motion for approval of the Fee and Expense Amount. Additionally, that Plaintiffs' Counsel may apply to the Court for reasonable service awards for Plaintiffs not to exceed $5,000 each ("Service Awards"), to be paid out of such Fee and Expense Amount awarded by the Court, in consideration for their roles in securing the Settlement's benefits. Neither the Company nor the Individual Defendants will oppose any such awards consistent with such limits. Neither the Company nor any of the Defendants nor their insurance carriers shall be liable for any portion of any Service Award. VIII.YOUR RIGHT TO OBJECT AND/OR BE HEARD AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING Any Current BD Stockholder may object and/or appear and show cause, if he, she, or it has any concern, why the Settlement should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, why the [Proposed] Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal should not be entered thereon, or why the Fee and Expense Amount, including any Service Awards, should not be finally approved; provided, however, that unless otherwise ordered by the Court, no Current BD Stockholder shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the Settlement, or, if approved, the Judgment to be entered approving the Settlement, or the Fee and Expense Amount, unless that stockholder has, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing: (1) filed with the Clerk of the Court a written objection to the Settlement setting forth (a) a written notice of objection with the person's name, address, and telephone number, along with a representation as to whether such person intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing, (b) competent evidence that such person currently holds shares of BD common stock, (c) a statement of objections to any matters before the Court, the grounds therefor, or the reasons for such person desiring to appear and be heard, as well as all documents or writings such person desires the Court to consider; (d) proof of service; and (e) the identities of any cases (by name and court) in which the objector or his, her, or its attorney, if any, has objected to a settlement in the last three (3) years; and, (2) if a BD stockholder intends to and requests to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, in addition to the requirements of (1) above, filed with the Clerk of the Court: (a) a written notice of such stockholder's intention to appear at the Settlement Hearing, (b) a statement indicating the basis for such appearance, and (c) any and all evidence that would be presented at the Settlement Hearing. If a Current BD Stockholder files a written objection and/or written notice of intent to appear, such stockholder must also simultaneously serve copies of such notice, proof, statement, and documentation, together with copies of any other papers or briefs such stockholder files with the Court (either by hand delivery or by first class mail) upon each of the following: ROBBINS LLP BRIAN J. ROBBINS CRAIG W. SMITH SHANE P. SANDERS 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 brobbins@robbinsllp.com csmith@robbinsllp.com ssanders@robbinsllp.com Counsel for Plaintiff Jeff Schranz and Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP BENJAMIN I. SACHS-MICHAELS MATTHEW M. HOUSTON 745 Fifth Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 935-7400 Facsimile: (212) 756-3630 bsachsmichaels@glancylaw.com mhouston@glancylaw.com ROBERT V. PRONGAY PAVITHRA RAJESH 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 rprongay@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff Ronald Jankowski and Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action WINSTON & STRAWN LLP JAMES P. SMITH III MATTHEW DIRISIO 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Tel: (212) 294-6700 jpsmith@winston.com mdirisio@winston.com McCARTER & ENGLISH LLP MATTHEW A. SKLAR Four Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Tel: (973) 624-4444 msklar@mccarter.com Counsel for Nominal Defendant Becton, Dickinson and Company, and Defendants Vincent A. Forlenza, Thomas E. Polen, Christopher R. Reidy, Catherine M. Burzik, R. Andrew Eckert, Claire M. Fraser, Jeffrey W. Henderson, Christopher Jones, Marshall O. Larsen, David F. Melcher, Claire Pomeroy, Rebecca W. Rimel, Timothy M. Ring, and Bertram L. Scott DILWORTH PAXSON LLP LISA J. RODRIGUEZ 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 Tel: (856) 675-1926 lrodriguez@dilworthlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff Ronald Jankowski and Co-Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action and Counsel for Plaintiff Agnes Lotz in the Consolidated State Court Action HERMAN JONES LLP SERINA M. VASH 153 Central Avenue #131 Westfield, NJ 07090 Telephone: (404) 504-6516 Facsimile: (404) 504-6501 svash@hermanjones.com Counsel for Plaintiff Jeff Schranz and Co-Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action Any Current BD Stockholder who does not make his, her, or its objection in the manner provided herein shall be deemed to have waived such objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making any objection to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement or the Fee and Expense Amount, including any Service Awards, as set forth in the Stipulation, and shall be forever bound by the Judgment to be entered, the dismissal of the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action with prejudice, and any and all of the releases set forth in the Stipulation. IX.CONDITIONS FOR SETTLEMENT The Settlement is conditioned upon the occurrence of certain events described in the Stipulation, which requires, among other things: (a) the dismissal with prejudice of the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action with prejudice, without any further relief except as provided in the Stipulation; (b) the entry by the Court of a Judgment providing for, among other things, such dismissal with prejudice of the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action and the release of the Released Claims as set forth in the Stipulation; and (c) the Settlement becoming Final. If, for any reason, any one of the conditions described in the Stipulation is not met and/or the entry of the Judgment does not occur, the Stipulation shall be null and void and of no force and effect and the Parties to the Stipulation will be restored to their respective positions as of the date immediately preceding the date of the Stipulation. X.EXAMINATION OF PAPERS AND INQUIRIES This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the Settlement. For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in the Settlement, reference is made to the Stipulation, which may be inspected at the Clerk of the Court's Office for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07102 during business hours of each business day or by visiting BD's website at https://investors.bd.com/. Any other inquiries regarding the Settlement or the Federal Derivative Action should be addressed in writing to the following: ROBBINS LLP BRIAN J. ROBBINS CRAIG W. SMITH SHANE P. SANDERS 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 brobbins@robbinsllp.com csmith@robbinsllp.com ssanders@robbinsllp.com Counsel for Plaintiff Jeff Schranz and Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP BENJAMIN I. SACHS-MICHAELS MATTHEW M. HOUSTON 745 Fifth Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 935-7400 Facsimile: (212) 756-3630 bsachsmichaels@glancylaw.com mhouston@glancylaw.com ROBERT V. PRONGAY PAVITHRA RAJESH 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 rprongay@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff Ronald Jankowski and Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action DILWORTH PAXSON LLP LISA J. RODRIGUEZ 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 Tel: (856) 675-1926 lrodriguez@dilworthlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff Ronald Jankowski and Co-Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action and Counsel for Plaintiff Agnes Lotz in the Consolidated State Court Action HERMAN JONES LLP SERINA M. VASH 153 Central Avenue #131 Westfield, NJ 07090 Telephone: (404) 504-6516 Facsimile: (404) 504-6501 svash@hermanjones.com Counsel for Plaintiff Jeff Schranz and Co-Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Derivative Action PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT, BD, OR THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE. BELK INC: McBride Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belk, Inc. The case is styled as Annie McBride, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Belk, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00432-FDW-SCR (W.D.N.C., June 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Belk, Inc. -- https://www.belk.com/ -- is an American department store chain founded in 1888 by William Henry Belk in Monroe, North Carolina, with nearly 300 locations in 16 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: sharris@milberg.com BETTER LIVING: Rice Products Contain Heavy Metals, Tomassian Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY TOMASSIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BETTER LIVING BRANDS LLC and SAFEWAY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-05175-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for alleged reckless, and/or intentional practice of failing to disclose the presence of arsenic and cadmium (collectively "Heavy Metals") in their Signature Select Arborio Rice. The complaint asserts that the Product's packaging affirmatively claims that the Product is "Kosher," "BPA-Free," "Certified Gluten Free," and "Non GMO." These statements are designed to convey to consumers that the Product is of the highest quality. These statements convey a false message in view of the Heavy Metal content of the Product, says the suit. This action seeks both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Class, restoring monies to the members of the proposed Class, who would not have purchased the Product had they known that it contained (or was at risk of containing) the Heavy Metals and/or would not have paid a premium price for the Product had they known the Product contained Heavy Metals. The Plaintiff purchased this Product beginning in approximately 2020. She asserts that she last purchased the Product shortly before she learned of the issues with Heavy Metals in the Product in March of 2025. Better Living Brands LLC is a subsidiary of American supermarket chain Safeway Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Philip J. Furia, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com BOND AUTO SALES: Rose Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bond Auto Sales of St Petersburg, Inc. The case is styled as Kenyo Rose, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Bond Auto Sales of St Petersburg, Inc., Case No. 25-003351-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., June 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Negligence - Business Torts." Bond Auto Sales of St Petersburg, Inc. -- https://www.bondautosalesstpete.com/ -- is a car dealer in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger D. Mason, II, Esq. ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A. 551 5th Avenue N St. Petersburg, FL 33701-2817 Phone: 813-304-2131 BOSTON MSA MULTIFAMILY: Mariano Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boston MSA Multifamily Leaseco, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Matthew Mariano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boston MSA Multifamily Leaseco, LLC, Island Residential Real Estate Services, LLC, Case No. 2581CV01528 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., June 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Boston MSA Multifamily Leaseco, LLC -- https://bostonhousing.org/ -- is a proven leader in urban real estate development in Boston, property management, consulting and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP, LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave., Ste. 306 Glendale, CA 91206-4281 Phone: 818-507-8525 Fax: 818-507-8588 Email: vache@kjtlawgroup.com CADENCE BANK: Settlement in Self, et al. Suit Gets Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Lee P. Rudofsky of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted final approval of the settlement agreement in the case captioned as JOSEPH SELF AND MALINDA SELF, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS v. CADENCE BANK, DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:24-cv-00142-LPR (E.D. Ark.). Plaintiffs, Joseph and Malinda Self, and Defendant, Cadence Bank, entered into the Class Action Settlement Agreement . The Court previously entered the Preliminary Approval Order, which certified, for settlement and notice purposes only, the following class: All current and former holders of Cadence Bank checking Accounts who, between January 11, 2019 through November 15, 2023 (the "Class Period"), were assessed at least one overdraft fee that Defendant charged on a Point-of-Sale debit card transaction that the customer initiated with a positive balance but settled into a negative balance during the Class Period, and which overdraft fee was not subsequently refunded (an "APSN Fee"). On May 9, 2025, the Court held a hearing on whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. The Court adopts and reaffirms the findings and conclusions set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Class Representatives and Class Counsel fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class in connection with the Settlement. The Settlement is the product of good faith, arm's-length negotiations by the Class Representatives and Class Counsel, and Defendant and Defendant's Counsel, and the Class and Defendant were represented by capable and experienced counsel. The form, content, and method of dissemination of the notice given to members of the Settlement Class -- individuals emailed or mailed notice -- were adequate and reasonable, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and satisfied the requirements of the applicable rules and Due Process. The Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class and is approved in all respects. The Court directs the Class Representatives, the Class, Class Counsel, Defendant, and Defendant's Counsel to effectuate the Settlement according to its terms. The Settlement provides for certain benefits to Class Members. The Court approves those benefits and approves the distribution plan for the Settlement Fund set forth in the Settlement, and the method and recipients for receipt of any cy pres payments, and the parties are authorized to implement distribution of the Settlement Fund after deductions for fees, expenses, and service awards as approved by the Court. The lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice and without assessment of costs or attorneys' fees against any party except as provided in the Settlement and Court Order. This Order is a final judgment because it disposes of all claims against all parties to this lawsuit. The Court has also considered Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards, as well as the supporting memorandum of law and declarations, and adjudges that (i) the payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the Settlement Fund, or $1,500,000, and (ii) the reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation expenses in the amount of $27,766.64 are reasonable under Rule 23 and applicable caselaw. The Court further finds that the requested service awards to each of the two (2) Class Representatives are fair and reasonable. As such, the Court approves a service award to each Class Representative in the amount of $5,000, to be paid from the Settlement Fund in the manner and at the times set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court has also considered the request for payment to the Settlement Administrator for notice and administration fees and expenses in the amount of $129,260 and approves reimbursement of these costs as reasonable under Rule 23 and applicable caselaw. Additionally, the Court has considered the request for reimbursement of expenses and fees paid by Cadence Bank to Ankura Consulting Group, LLC in the amount of $325,000 for Ankura's work in completing the calculations of the amounts Settlement Class Members paid in APSN Fees during the Class Period, as alleged by Plaintiffs, and compiling and updating the Class List and approves reimbursement of these costs as reasonable under Rule 23 and applicable caselaw. A copy of the Court's Final Approval Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xnxcts from PacerMonitor.com. CADENSE INC: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Debbie Pittman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cadense, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06852 (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://cadense.com (hereinafter "Cadense.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, Cadense.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 Cadense'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. Cadense provides to the public a website known as Cadense.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide range of adaptive sneakers and casual shoes designed for everyday comfort and mobility, as well as performance socks and shoe care products.[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 CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Court Stays RA Capital Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge John S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants' motion to stay the case captioned as RA CAPITAL HEALTHCARE FUND, L.P., Plaintiff, v. CHEMOCENTRYX, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-02645-JST (N.D.Cal.). Before the Court is Defendants ChemoCentryx, Inc. and Dr. Thomas J. Schall's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay action. Plaintiff alleges that it suffered tens of millions of dollars in investment losses as a result of false and misleading statements and omissions made by Defendants regarding ChemoCentryx's major new drug avacopan. It asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b); violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c); violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act; violation of Section 18 of the Exchange Act; fraud; negligent misrepresentation; and violation of California Civil Code Sec. 1709. Three years before Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, Lead Plaintiff Indiana Public Retirement System filed in this Court Homyk v. ChemoCentryx, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-03343 (the "Class Action"), an action individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired ChemoCentryx common stock between November 26, 2019, and May 6, 2021. In that action, IPRS raises essentially identical allegations as those asserted by Plaintiff in this case -- that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions about avacopan, thereby artificially inflating the price of ChemoCentryx stock during the Class Period, and that Dr. Schall is liable for insider trading under Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act. Motions for summary judgment in that case will be fully briefed by July 3, 2025. Jury trial is set to begin on Sept. 23, 2025. Defendants now move to stay this case pending resolution of the Class Action. They also move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The Court finds good cause to stay this case pending resolution of the Class Action filed by IPRS. According to the Court, the issuance of a stay would simplify the issues, proof, and questions of law. As Plaintiff acknowledges, the Class and Plaintiff allege the same misstatements with the exception that Plaintiff has alleged one additional category of misstatements relating to ChemoCentryx's disclosure controls and procedures. The factual nexus and core of legal issues remain the same between the two cases -- Defendants' alleged fraudulent representation regarding avacopan and the ADVOCATE trial and the subsequent injury suffered by investors after the disclosures of fraud in May 2021. With summary judgment briefing about to conclude and trial scheduled for slightly more than three months from now, the Class Action will soon resolve some or all of the issues underlying both sets of litigation. The Court finds the interests of judicial economy and efficiency warrant the issuance of a stay in this case pending the resolution of the Class Action. This case is stayed pending resolution of Homyk v. ChemoCentryx, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-03343 (N.D. Cal.). The Court does not reach Defendants' alternative motion to dismiss. Defendants' motion to dismiss is administratively terminated, without prejudice to re-noticing or re-filing, if appropriate, after the stay is lifted. As a control date, the Court sets a case management conference on Nov. 18, 2025, with a joint case management statement due by Nov. 12, 2025. If the Class Action is concluded prior to that time, the parties may file a request for an earlier case management conference or a stipulation and proposed order suggesting a schedule for proceeding with this litigation. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M7ho3a from PacerMonitor.com. CIGNA HEALTH: Proposed Discovery Plan in Rasin Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada grants in part and denies in part the parties' stipulated discovery plan in the case captioned as Irena Stanic Rasin, on her own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00407-CDS-DJA (D. Nev.). Before the Court is the parties' stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order. The parties seek to conduct limited "phase 1" discovery prior to the Court's decision regarding the Defendant's motion to dismiss. They seek to delay the remainder of their discovery and setting discovery deadlines until after the Court decides the motion to dismiss. Given the parties' proposed discovery plan, it appears that they seek a limited stay of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The parties assert that this case is a complex class action involving a health plan and so, they require a modified schedule. The Court will grant the parties' request for a partial stay of discovery. However, the Court will deny the remainder of the parties' proposed schedule because it purports to set non-concrete deadlines. The parties must file a renewed stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order within fourteen days of the Court's decision on the Defendant's motion to dismiss. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7BBAVH from PacerMonitor.com. CITY WINERY: Lugo Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bartenders/Servers ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS LUGO, ANNA MARIE RAY, and JACKIE DANNHEISER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY WINERY, LLC, CITY VINEYARD, LLC, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100, and MICHAEL DORF, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05135 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay wages for all hours worked, including overtime pay and tips, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and several state wage and hour laws in the U.S. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a bartender or server at any time between 2020 and 2023. City Winery, LLC is a live music and comedy venue, urban winery, restaurant, and private event space, located at 25 11th Ave., New York, New York. City Vineyard, LLC is a live music and comedy venue, urban winery, restaurant, and private event space, located at 233 West St., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 CLEAN HARBORS: Velasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. The case is styled as Julio Andres Velasquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0008537 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Clean Harbors -- https://www.cleanharbors.com/ -- is North America's leading provider of environmental and industrial services.[BN] CLIN-PATH ASSOCIATES: Peterson-Sportsman Balks at Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Peterson-Sportsman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Clin-Path Associates, PLC, an Arizona professional limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02148-SPL (D. Ariz., June 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of patients who received laboratory services from Defendant. On May 6, 2025, the Defendant fell victim to a ransomware attack where patient data was accessed and acquired by an unauthorized third-party known as the QILIN ransomware group. On May 16, the QILIN ransomware group posted the data acquired in the Data Breach to the dark web. As of June 16, the Defendant has not sent out data breach notice letters to individuals who were affected by the Data Breach. The Defendant has not provided the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. To date, these omitted details have not been explained or clarified to the affected individuals, who retain a vested interest in ensuring that their PHI remains protected, says the suit. The Plaintiff alleges that the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendant implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, it could have prevented the Data Breach, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff was a patient of Abrazo West, which is part of the Abrazo Community Health Network chain of hospitals. Clin-Path Associates, PLC provides professional and laboratory services to hospitals, physician offices, surgery centers, laboratories, and other facilities, including Abrazo West.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Wilkins Hoffman, Esq. FROST LLP 3200 N. Central Ave., Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (480) 466-7005 E-mail: amyh@frostllp.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: cmad@poulinwilley.com COMMERCIAL FITNESS: Benton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Benton, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. COMMERCIAL FITNESS CONCEPTS, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00315-MTS (N.D. Okla., June 24, 2025), is brought for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). The Defendant has a common pay policy and/or pay practice which fails to pay certain hourly paid employees at a rate of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Defendant has a common pay policy and/or pay practice which instead only pays certain hourly paid employees their regular rate of pay for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from March 2022 through November 2024. The Defendant is a company classified as a new and used fitness equipment distribution company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Quinn Patrick Stine, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 101 Park Avenue, Suite 1350 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (689) 219-2229 Facsimile: (689) 219-2259 Email: qstine@forthepeople.com - and - Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 Email: kimd@forthepeople.com CONNEXION POINT: Cruz Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARYANN CRUZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CONNEXION POINT, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, and INTEGRITY, LLC., f/k/a INTEGRITY MARKETING GROUP a Texas Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00966-TC-DBP (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1) Conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid overtime wages under section216(b) of the FLSA on behalf of the following "Collective": "All current and former remote, hourly Healthcare Agents who worked for the Defendants at any time from June 25, 2022 to present"; 2) Approving the proposed Notice (attached as Exhibit 1) for dissemination to members of the proposed Collective via US Mail and email, informing them of this FLSA action and providing them with the opportunity to join; 3) Equitably tolling the putative Collectives' statute of limitations from the date this Motion was filed to the date of the order granting this motion if there is a substantial delay in issuing the proposed Notice; 4) Directing Defendant to identify all putative members of the proposed Collective by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and locations of employment, and e- mail addresses in electronic and importable format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of the entry of the order; 5) Approving a sixty (60) day opt-in period from the date the Court-approved Notice is sent during which putative members of the Collective may join this case by returning their written consents; and 6) Approving a reminder notice to the Collective but with the title "Reminder" in the email subject line) by email reminding them of the approaching opt-in deadline and their right to join this lawsuit thirty (30) days into the opt-in period. CXP is a healthcare services company specializing in tailored, scalable solutions that enhance consumer acquisition, engagement, and retention. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aIA0hD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 43000 W. 9 Mile Road, Ste. 301 Novi, MI 48375 Telephone: (734) 234-5583 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com - and - Kass Harstad, Esq. BIRCH HALLAM HARSTAD, & JOHNSON, LLC 1516 W Hays St., Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (801) 948-2550, ext. 215 E-mail: kass@idahojustice.com - and - Oscar Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW, PLC 402 W. Liberty St. Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Telephone: (734) 355-5666 E-mail: oscar@orodlaw.com COOPER INTERCONNECT: Class Settlement in Ott Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALETTE OTT and LOIRA SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COOPER INTERCONNECT, INC.; EATON CORPORATION; POWER DISTRIBUTION, INC.; JOSLYN SUBANK COMPANY, LLC; SURE POWER, INC.; EATON AEROSPACE LLC; COOPER BUSSMAN, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-04501-SPG-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Court the Plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The settlement as set forth in the Amended Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved; 2. The Class as defined in the Settlement Agreement is preliminarily certified for purposes of settlement; 3. For settlement purposes only, the Court appoints: a. The Plaintiffs Dalette Ott and Loira Sanchez as Class Representatives; b. Wilshire Law Firm, PLC as Class Counsel; and c. CPT Group, Inc. as the third-party Settlement Administrator; 4. The proposed Class Notices must be disseminated to the proposed Settlement Class as provided in the Settlement Agreement; 5. The Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Oct. 22, 2025. The Settlement Agreement defines the Class to be "all individuals who were employed by Defendants in the State of California and classified as non-exempt employees during the Class Period." The Class Period is defined as "the period from April 25, 2019, to Oct. 14, 2024, or the date of preliminary approval, whichever is earlier." Cooper is a manufacturer of connector and cable assembly product. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XH8haF at no extra charge.[CC] COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corebridge Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Friel, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Corebridge Financial, Inc. doing business as: American General Life, Case No. 3:25-cv-01132-JKM (M.D. Pa., June 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Corebridge Financial, Inc. -- https://www.corebridgefinancial.com/ -- is an American financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com CORNERSTONE CAREGIVING: Alioto Sues Over Unlawful Timekeeping ------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Alioto, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CORNERSTONE CAREGIVING, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01292 (W.D. Tex., June 20, 2025), is brought challenging the Defendant's timekeeping and pay practices by which they willfully violated their employees' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as Ohio's overtime compensation statute. The Defendant knew that the Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Class Members were entitled to compensation for all hours worked and overtime compensation for hours over 40 in a workweek under both federal and state law, or otherwise acted in reckless disregard for whether they were so entitled. The Defendant intentionally and willfully circumvented the requirements of the FLSA and state law. Defendant designed its timekeeping and payroll policies and practices in an attempt to reduce employees' paid hours and circumvent wage-and hour laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from July 2024 through June 2025 as a home health aide. The Defendant operates a common business enterprise through its affiliates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-308-1522 Fax: 888-604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com COSTA DEL MAR: Court Tosses Smith MMWA Suit Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- Senior Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed without prejudice the case captioned as TROY SMITH, etc., Plaintiff, v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., etc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-1011-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla.) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In an opinion reversing the Court's order approving a class-action settlement in this breach of warranty case, the Eleventh Circuit directed the Court to re-examine its subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff, seeking relief solely under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Ac, and citing the Class Action Fairness Act as the only basis for jurisdiction, sought to represent a class whose members alleged that defendant failed to live up to the warranties that came with the purchase of Costa sunglasses. Following a global settlement that included parties from two related cases, the Court held a fairness hearing and approved the proposed settlement, with some minor changes. Objectors appealed and the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek the injunctive relief included in the settlement. In vacating and remanding the case for further consideration, the Eleventh Circuit instructed the Court to consider other jurisdictional issues raised by the parties, including whether it had subject matter jurisdiction in light of recent authority from the Third and Ninth Circuits holding that CAFA does not provide an alternative basis for a federal court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction when the jurisdictional requirements of the MMWA are not met. The Court finds because there are fewer than 100 named plaintiffs, plaintiff fails to meet the federal court jurisdictional requirements of subsection (1)(B) of the MMWA. CAFA does not provide an independent jurisdictional basis. Therefore, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EikKSD from PacerMonitor.com. COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 27, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BALDINO-MILLER, on behalf of herself and all similarly aggrieved employees, v. COURTYARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01613-KES-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered the following amended dates for class certification: 1. Class certification written March 2, 2026 discovery cutoff: 2. Class certification motion April 27, 2026 filing deadline: 3. Class certification opposition June 22, 2026 deadline: 4. Class certification reply Aug. 17, 2026 deadline: 5. Class certification motion To be scheduled hearing: Courtyard operates as a chain of hotels. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WMhLuY at no extra charge.[CC] COWAY USA INC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Darnell Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Coway Usa, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06846 (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://cowaymega.com (hereinafter "Cowaymega.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, Cowaymega.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 Coway'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. Coway provides to the public a website known as Cowaymega.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view air purifiers, water purifiers, filters, covers, and bidets.[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 CROWDVEST LLC: Bid to Extend Time to File Class Cert Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA JOHNSON, v. CROWDVEST LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01293-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order that the Plaintiff Cynthia Johnson's motion for an order to show cause and for an extension of time to move for class certification be and the same is granted in part and denied in part: -- the motion is granted to the extent it seeks an order to show cause; and -- it is denied insofar as it seeks a show cause hearing and a 45-day extension to the Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification. The Court further entered an order that: -- Crowdvest shall file an update showing cause as to why it should not be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with the Court's May 19 order, on or before July 15, 2025. -- Crowdvest shall obtain local counsel and that local counsel shall appear on the docket, on or before July 31, 2025. -- the Plaintiff Cynthia Johnson's deadline to move for class certification, previously set for July 11, 2025, be and the same is stayed. In October 2024, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against Crowdvest for "routinely violating 47 U.S.C. section 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) by delivering more than one advertisement or marketing text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry without prior express invitation or permission." Crowdvest is a commercial real estate investment firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ww9V7O at no extra charge.[CC] CSX TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Blanton FMLA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Senior Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied CSX Transportation, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned as MICHAEL BLANTON, Plaintiff, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-922-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla.). Defendant, CSX Transportation, Inc., employed Plaintiff, Michael Blanton, until around December 2020. CSX terminated Blanton for a workplace rules violation -- alleged misuse of time off on Dec. 24, 2020, under the Family and Medical Leave Act. There have been multiple lawsuits alleging CSX improperly disciplined and terminated employees for FMLA misuse. This includes a 2018 Maryland lawsuit, Bell v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 1:18-cv-744 (D. Md.). Bell included a class defined as: Individuals who, at any time from three years preceding the complaint's filing to the resolution of this action, were disciplined or terminated for using FMLA leave. The class in Bell was never certified. On May 8, 2024, the Bell court denied CSX's motion for summary judgment. That same day, it issued a show cause order expressing doubt that the case in its current form is amenable to class certification. The show cause order specified that if the matter did not proceed as a class action, the court was likely to transfer all cases of non-Maryland residents to the federal judicial district where each resided. On June 5, 2024, the Bell plaintiffs responded that they did not object to having the cases of non-Maryland residents transferred. Before the transfers occurred, on Sept. 6, 2024, Blanton filed this suit. When Blanton filed this suit, it was more than three years after his termination. The motion to dismiss makes a single argument: that Blanton's lawsuit is barred by FMLA's two- or three-year statute of limitations. Without tolling, Blanton's claim is untimely. Blanton argues tolling applies because he was a putative class member in the Bell litigation. If the Bell class had been certified, it would have encompassed Blanton's termination. Once the Bell court signaled class certification was unlikely, Blanton quickly filed suit individually. The circumstances of this case fall under the reasoning of American Pipe and Crown, Cork, & Seal Co., and tolling is proper. CSX argues tolling does not apply because the proposed class in Bell was an improper fail-safe class and that it did not give CSX the essential information necessary to determine both the subject matter and size of the prospective litigation. Judge Corrigan holds, "CSX's objections are not persuasive. CSX had notice of legal concerns regarding its discipline and termination decisions over alleged FMLA misuse. CSX did or should have known which employees it disciplined or terminated based on alleged FMLA misuse. CSX terminated Blanton after an internal hearing in or around December 2020, almost two years after the Bell litigation started in Maryland, challenging similar practices and seeking a class that would include others similarly impacted, such as Blanton." Defendant must answer the complaint no later than July 25, 2025. The parties must file a case management report no later than July 25, 2025. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eHRXnA from PacerMonitor.com. CUSTOM STONESCAPING: Pineda Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Pineda, and others similarly situated v. CUSTOM STONESCAPING, LLC and JEFF REYNOLDS, Case No. 1:25-cv-01047 (E.D. Va., June 20, 2025), is brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") and the Virginia Human Rights Act ("VHRA") for unlawful discrimination based on age and for failure to properly pay wages. In March 2024, Custom terminated Mr. Pineda's employment. Reynolds made the decision to terminate Mr. Pineda's employment and instructed Mr. Pineda's direct supervisor, Horacio Correa ("Correa"), to inform him of the decision. During discussion about the reason for his termination Correa told Mr. Pineda he was "too old" for the position. Management discussions about Mr. Pineda's job performance included references to his age. Custom claimed performance issues justified the termination. However, no evidence supported these claims. During the course of Mr. Pineda's employment Mr. Pineda and others similarly situated often worked more than 40 hours during workweeks. Overtime work was particularly common during the late spring, summer and early fall, when Custom had a particularly heavy workload. Mr. Pineda and others performing similar construction work were not compensated at the required overtime rate for overtime work. Instead, they were paid at their regular hourly rate. Payments for this overtime work (at the regular rate) were made in cash even though wages for work of forty hours or less during a workweek were made by check, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began his employment with Custom on January 1, 2015, as a Brick and Concrete Worker. Custom is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Erlich, Esq. Katherine L. Herrmann, Esq. THE ERLICH LAW OFFICE, PLLC 1550 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 791-9087 Fax: (703) 722-8114 Email: jerlich@erlichlawoffice.com kherrmann@erlichlawoffice.com - and - Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N Glebe Rd, Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 665-9529 Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Violates Inmates' Civil Rights, Noriega Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN JAMES NORIEGA and DARIUS LATRELL RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01567-D (N.D. Tex., June 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and Texas state common law. The case challenges Dallas County's political and professional leadership and management, and its policies, practices, and customs which directly violate the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as other federal and state laws. According to the complaint, Dallas County employees unlawfully incarcerated the Plaintiffs beyond their lawful release date, directly violating their constitutional due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure, the Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, and state law. The Plaintiffs are pleading that the specified factual contentions have or will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity to conduct further investigation and/or discovery, suit says. Dallas County is a county in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Spangler, Jr., Esq. SPANGLER LAW PLLC 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 2620 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 932-3030 Email: jim@spanglerlaw.com - and - Huma T. Yasin, Esq. SPANGLER LAW PLLC 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 2620 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 932-3030 Email: hyasin@spanglerlaw.com - and - David A. Burns, Esq. SPANGLER LAW PLLC 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 2620 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 932-3030 Email: dburns@spanglerlaw.com DANISH BAKE NYC: Liz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Liz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Danish Bake NYC, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05162 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for their 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 Comer Table Restaurants provides to their non-disabled customers through https://oleandsteen-us (hereinafter "Oleandsteen.us" 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 Plaintiffs rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Oleandsteen.us, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Corner Danish Bake NYC's policies, practices, and procedures to 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 complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Danish Bake NYC provides to the public a website known as Oleandsteen.us which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of Danish-style breads, pastries, cinnamon social slices, cakes, sandwiches, coffee, and beverages, all available for pickup or delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: +1 347-941-4715 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com DENTSPLY SIRONA: $84MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE DENTSPLY SIRONA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION 18 Civ. 7253 (NG)(PK) SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Dentsply International, Inc. ("Dentsply Intl.") or Dentsply Sirona, Inc. ("Dentsply Sirona") during the period from December 8, 2015 through August 6, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff Strathclyde Pension Fund ("Lead Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $84,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. The Action involves allegations that Dentsply Sirona and certain of its senior officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Defendants deny all allegations in the Action and deny any violations of the federal securities laws. Issues and defenses at issue in the Action included, among others, (i) whether Defendants made materially false statements or omissions; (ii) whether Defendants made the statements with the required state of mind; (iii) whether the alleged misstatements caused class members' losses; and (iv) the amount of damages, if any. A virtual hearing will be held on September 10, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Nina Gershon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class Representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Settlement Agreement (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. Anyone who files a written objection will be provided with a Zoom link by Lead Counsel or the Court. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Dentsply Sirona Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data Ltd., P.O. Box 173027, Milwaukee, WI 53217; (866) 217-4456; info@DentsplySironaSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.DentsplySironaSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or online by no later than October 7, 2025, or within thirty (30) days after final approval is granted to the Settlement, whichever is later. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than August 20, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than August 20, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Dentsply Sirona Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173027 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Tel: (866) 217-4456 info@DentsplySironaSecuritiesLitigation.com www.DentsplySironaSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Michael Toomey Barrack, Rodos & Bacine 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 877-386-3304 settlements@barrack.com By Order of the Court DOLLAR TREE: Godines Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cecilia Godines, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV011404 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01743-TLN-CSK. The Complaint asserts nine putative class action causes of action for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; meal break violations; rest break violations; wages not timely paid during employment; failure to provide accurate wage statements; untimely final wages; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ryan D. Derry, Esq. Emily Stover, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 Email: ryanderry@paulhastings.com emilystover@paulhastings.com EMBLEMHEALTH SERVICES: Ruggles Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Fay Ruggles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as a collective and class representative, Plaintiff v. EmblemHealth Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05133 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint asserts that Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the other similarly situated individuals to routinely work more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. The putative class is made up of all persons who are or have been employed by Defendant in New York as Care Managers - Utilization Management, Utilization Management Nurses, Utilization Review Nurses, or other similar positions who were paid a salary and treated as exempt from overtime laws, and whose primary job was to perform medical necessity reviews during the applicable statutory period. EmblemHealth is a multi-line health insurance company that provides managed care programs and related services, including utilization review services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: srey@nka.com copperman@nka.com ERIE INDEMNITY: Smith Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Indemnity Company, et al. The case is styled as Crystal Smith, individually and on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. Erie Indemnity Company, Erie Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00164 (W.D. Pa., June 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Erie Indemnity Company -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com ERIE INDEMNITY: Walker Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Indemnity Company, et al. The case is styled as Tracy Walker, individually and on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. Erie Indemnity Company, Erie Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00173-CB (W.D. Pa., June 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Erie Indemnity Company -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY: Tarr Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Insurance Company. The case is styled as Michael Tarr, individually and on behalf himself, and all others similarly situated v. Erie Insurance Company, Case No. 2579CV00419 (W.D. Pa., June 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Erie Insurance Company -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- operates as an insurance company. The Company offers personal, commercial, and business insurance products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi A. Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Fax: (516) 741-0128 Email: rkassan@milberg.com ESTRIN/HINDS CONSTRUCTION: Morataya Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estrin/Hinds Construction Co., Inc. The case is styled as Eswin Jolon Morataya, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved and similarly situated v. Estrin/Hinds Construction Co., Inc., Case No. 25STCV18223 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Estrin-Hinds -- https://www.estrinhinds.com/ -- has built multi-million-dollar custom homes, outpatient surgery centers, medical facilities, post-production studios and hotel renovations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory P. Wong, Esq. LYFE LAW, LLP 864 S Robertson Blvd., 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90035 Phone: 888-203-1422 Email: gregw@lyfe.com FCA US: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to March 11, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN FISHER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-10426-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Leitman entered an order amending scheduling order and extending all deadlines to 90 days: Event Proposed Deadline Close of Fact Discovery: Oct. 31, 2025 Plaintiffs Identify Experts Nov. 21, 2025 and Serve Expert Reports: Defendant Identifies Experts Jan. 20, 2026 and Serves Expert Reports: Close of Expert Discovery: Feb. 13, 2026 Deadline for Motion for Class Mar. 11, 2026 Certification and Motion for Summary Judgment: Response in opposition to May 8, 2026 Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Summary Judgment and Deadline for Motions Challenging Experts: FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xNcMVT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. Univ. Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 272 Commerce St. Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com - and - Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Hannah Lazarz, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN 222 2nd Ave. S., Ste. 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com hlazarz@lchb.com - and - Patrick Newsom, Esq. NEWSOM LAW PLC 40 Music Square E. Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 251-9500 E-mail: patrick@newsom.law The Defendant is represented by: Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. Fred J. Fresard, Esq. Ian K. Edwards, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888-2970 E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com fred.fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com ian.edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com FEDERAL RESERVE: District of Columbia Dismisses Emrit Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismisses without prejudice the lawsuit styled RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01553-UNA (D.D.C.). On April 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas transferred this matter to this Court. Pending are the Plaintiff's pro se complaint, and his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Judge Mehta says that the Plaintiff is barred from proceeding IFP in this Court, citing Emrit v. Pratt, No. 23-cv-992 (D.D.C. June 6, 2023), at Barring Order. Therefore, the Court must deny his IFP application. In any event, upon review, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and it is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff, a resident of Florida and Maryland, who holds himself out as a "Presidential Candidate," attempts to bring this matter as a class action lawsuit, including as plaintiffs all impoverished Americans. He raises claims against the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Open Market Committee, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the National Mint. Judge Mehta notes that the complaint is not a model of clarity. Despite having filed this matter in the Eastern District of Texas, the Plaintiff references the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and seeks relief directly from the Chief Judge of the Middle District of Louisiana. The allegations are rambling and difficult to follow, covering a range of topics that include, but are not limited to, a historical chronicle of federal and private financial institutions, schools of economic thought, patent applications, visa applications, the Plaintiff's significant others, "The Blair Witch Project," and the theory of "stigmergy." The Plaintiff's primary concerns are the tariffs enacted in 2025, which he asserts are negatively impacting the American economy. He demands an injunction barring any tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and China, as well as two trillion dollars in damages. First, Judge Mehta holds, the Plaintiff cannot bring this matter as a class action. A pro se litigant can represent only herself in federal court. Second, even if the Plaintiff had brought this matter individually, he has failed to establish standing. Judge Mehta finds that the Plaintiff does not allege a redressable injury that is particularized to himself. He broadly claims that he suffered damages but provides no details or context regarding those damages whatsoever. Judge Mehta adds, among other things, that the complaint lacks any factual allegations showing that he sustained, or is likely to sustain, any direct injury from the alleged actions. As pleaded, the Plaintiff has raised, at best, a general grievance about the federal government. Consequently, for these reasons, the Court dismisses the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff's pending request for leave to file a proposed "notice of appeal" is denied, because it is captioned for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, not for this District or the D.C. Circuit, and it does not reference a final appealable order; indeed, until now, no final appealable order has been docketed. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/4jukww6n from PacerMonitor.com. GAMEDAY SPIRIT: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gameday Spirit, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06815 (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://www.gamedayspirit.com (hereinafter "Gamedayspirit.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, Gamedayspirit.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 Gameday Spirit'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. Gameday Spirit provides to the public a website known as Gamedayspirit.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of hoodies, sweatshirts, polos, t-shirts, shorts, pants, outerwear, bags, hats and fans gear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Easily Stolen Trucks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan McAleer, writing for Car and Driver, reports that a Texas class-action lawsuit claims that GM knew its key fobs and ignition systems can be easily overpowered by inexpensive signal cloning devices that thieves use these days. -- A class-action lawsuit alleges that GM full-size trucks are too easy to steal. -- The lawsuit specifically covers the issue of ignition key fobs being cloned. -- 2010–2025 models of the GMC Sierra and Yukon; Chevrolet Tahoe, Suburban, and Silverado; and -- Cadillac Escalade are all named in the lawsuit. Modern vehicles are full of all sorts of factory-installed devices to prevent or deter theft, from immobilizers to alarm systems. The problem is, of course, that thieves evolve their toolkits to defeat whatever the current technology throws up as a defense. The days of hot-wiring or jamming a screwdriver into an ignition socket are long over, but a well-equipped thief is still perfectly capable of making your car gone in 60 seconds. Or less. Most manufacturers work hard on this thorny issue, trying to stay ahead of would-be car thieves. It's not just trying to please existing customers, but high rates of theft can impact insurance and drive shoppers elsewhere. However, a new class-action lawsuit brought against GM is claiming that General Motors isn't doing enough. The lawsuit, filed in Texas courts, alleges that GM ignored vulnerabilities in the keyless entry systems for certain full-size trucks and SUVs from Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac. It claims that GM knew the key fobs and ignition systems could be easily overpowered by inexpensive signal cloning devices, technology that's readily available to car thieves. Plaintiff Jeremy Burkett says his 2016 GMC Sierra was stolen right out of his driveway three years ago. He's since replaced the vehicle with a 2023 GMC Sierra, but in the lawsuit notes that he believes it to be vulnerable as well. Two years ago, Hyundai and Kia reached a $200 million settlement with owners of easily stolen cars. These vehicles, mostly the base models without keyless push-button ignitions, were the subject of a viral trend on the social media site TikTok. Dubbed the Kia Challenge, the fad saw the theft rate of Kia and Hyundai models skyrocket 25 times over the previous year's average. GM has previously faced a similar lawsuit over the security systems of the 2010–2023 Camaro. This new suit affects a wider range of cars, and as newer Yukons and Escalades are popular targets for theft, it could be a major pain for the company. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Hecht Suit Over Sale of Defective Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOB HECHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11793-SKD-KGA (N.D. Ohio, June 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, negligent design defect, fraud by omission/concealment, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of vehicles with alleged defect in the connecting rod and/or crankshaft engine components. According to the complaint, the defect can lead to engine damage and engine failure. In late April 2025, the Defendant issued a recall for nearly 600,000 of the Class vehicle models because of the defect. However, the recall will cost the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers time and money to transport their defective vehicles to the Defendant's certified mechanic. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. General Motors LLC is an automobile manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Baker, Esq. THE BAKER LAW GROUP 89 E. Nationwide Blvd., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 696-7394 Facsimile: (614) 228-1862 Email: Andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Markus Suit Over Vehicles' Engine Defect -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN MARKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11821-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 18, 2025) alleges that Defendant knowingly sold hundreds of thousands of Class Vehicles containing a potentially deadly defect lurking in their vehicles' engines in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. According to the complaint, the L87 Engine's performance depends on the integrity of its internal components, particularly the crankshaft, connecting rods, and engine bearings. However, GM has concealed for years that the bearings in their L87 Engines are known to be prone to, and have experienced failure, resulting in breaching of the engine block by the connecting rod and/or engine seizure. The Engine Defect renders the Class Vehicles unsafe and unreliable. Drivers are left with Class Vehicles that can experience catastrophic engine failure at any moment. This is all the more dangerous because it can cause the loss of motive power while driving at high speeds, increasing the risk of a crash, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles, including Plaintiff and Class Members, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property in the form of, for example, loss of value, loss of use of the vehicles, and repair costs. General Motors, LLC is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. Dana E. Fraser, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com def@millerlawpc.com - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: beth@feganscott.com - and - Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (332) 216-2101 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: jonathan@feganscott.com GENOMIC HEALTH: Atienza Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kenneth Atienza, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. GENOMIC HEALTH, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25-CIV-03760 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05222. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts that Defendant violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA"), by allegedly failing to disclose information regarding consumer reports. Plaintiff's complaint also alleges claims for: failure to pay minimum wages; unpaid overtime; meal break violations; rest break violations; wages not timely paid during employment; wage statement violations; failure to pay all wages due upon termination of employment; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; unlawful post-employment agreements; and unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron L. Agenbroad, Esq. Matthew H. Wallace, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: +1.415.626.3939 Facsimile: +1.415.875.5700 Email: alagenbroad@jonesday.com matthewwallace@jonesday.com - and - Cindi L. Ritchey, Esq. Kassi Stephenson, Esq. 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121.3134 Phone: +1.858.314.1200 Facsimile: +1.844.345.3178 Email: critchey@jonesday.com kstephenson@jonesday.com GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Brewton Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USA. The case is styled as Martha Brewton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USA., Case No. 1:25-cv-03485-JPB (D.N.J., June 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- https://glenmarkpharma-us.com/ -- manufactures, markets and/or distributes more than 130 drugs in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roshan Deven Shah, Esq. SHAW LAW GROUP 1040 Broad Street, Ste. 304 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Phone: (732) 398-6545 Fax: (732) 576-0027 Email: rshah@shahlg.com GOHEALTH INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOCO) resulting from allegations that GoHealth may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased GoHealth securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=39506 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On May 1, 2025, the United States Department of Justice issued an announcement entitled "The United States Files False Claims Act Complaint Against Three National Health Insurance Companies and Three Brokers Alleging Unlawful Kickbacks and Discrimination Against Disabled Americans." The release stated, in pertinent part, that GoHealth had been charged and that "from 2016 through at least 2021, the defendant insurers paid hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to the defendant brokers in exchange for enrollments into the insurers' Medicare Advantage plans." On this news, GoHealth's stock fell 10.3% on May 1, 2025, and 6.7% on May 2, 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Court Excludes CEO as Trial Witness in Rodriguez Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief in the case captioned as ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs appeal an order by the magistrate judge assigned to this case, which granted Defendant's motion to exclude its CEO Sundar Pichai from the upcoming trial. According to Plaintiffs, Pichai is a percipient witness who was intimately involved with the Google settings and products at the core of this class action, and he therefore should testify. Federal Rule 26(b) governs the underlying legal question in this case. In this instance, Defendant moved to exclude Pichai from trial after Plaintiffs amended their Rule 26 disclosures (for the third time, and two years after fact discovery closed) to add Pichai as a trial witness -- the only one Plaintiffs intend to call that they never attempted to depose. This was, apparently, the first indication that Plaintiffs wanted Pichai to testify. Defendant argued that any probative value from his testimony would be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice and, in the alternative, that his testimony is barred by the apex doctrine. The magistrate judge agreed as to the apex doctrine and so excluded Pichai from trial in an order that Plaintiffs now challenge. The Court finds Plaintiffs have not shown Pichai possesses unique first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in this case such that his testimony at trial is warranted. Judge Seeborg explains, "Ultimately, Plaintiffs' motion for relief suggests that his testimony is important for the jury to assess Google's motives for its at-issue behavior, but the robust record in this case promises to provide more than enough information for the jury to consider those motives. Because Pichai is at the absolute apex of Google, and considering that he is not particularly relevant to the evidence proffered in support of his testimony, the protections of Rule 26 and the apex doctrine are especially important here. " Moreover, Plaintiffs plainly did not exhaust other, less intrusive methods of discovering what Pichai might know -- they did not depose him or even fully pursue his files during active discovery, the Court adds. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VBZKqD from PacerMonitor.com. GPF FOOTWEAR LLC: Galicia Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against GPF Footwear LLC. The case is styled as Jorge Galicia, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GPF Footwear LLC doing business as: Ewing Athletics, Case No. 5:25-cv-01526-JGB-PD (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. GPF Footwear LLC doing business as Ewing Athletics -- https://shop.ewingathletics.com/ -- is an American basketball shoe brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com HAMILTON BEACH: Wins Bid to Dismiss Borowsky Product Warranty Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned as NORA JO BOROWSKY, Plaintiff, v. HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-02364-JSC (N.D. Cal.) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. . Plaintiff purchased the Hamilton Beach Easy Reach 4-Slice Countertop Toaster Oven via Amazon.com on Jan. 9, 2025. The appliance was delivered to her on Jan. 11, 2025. Defendant offers an express warranty against defects in material and workmanship for one year from the date of purchase. Based on the timing of purchase, the product is still within the warranty period. Plaintiff does not allege that her appliance has exhibited any defects or that she has submitted any warranty claims to Defendant. Plaintiff Borowsky brings this action on behalf of a putative class of California consumers, alleging Defendant Hamilton Beach Brands issued express product warranties in violation of California Civil Code Sec. 1793.01. Based on this allegation, Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: 1) violation of the Song-Beverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1790 et seq., and 2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq. Plaintiff argues she suffered concrete economic harm because the value of the warranty was reduced by two days, and had she known the warranty was unlawful, she would have paid less for the product. Defendant moves to dismiss the Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of standing, and Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. Judge Corley explains, "Plaintiff’s alleged injury is too speculative to establish standing. Plaintiff has not alleged her appliance is broken or malfunctioned. She has not alleged she submitted any claim under the warranty that was denied. Rather, she seeks a remedy for a violation of California Civil Code Sec. 1793.01, which, she argues, resulted in two fewer days of warranty coverage. This cannot suffice to establish injury in fact, as it relies on a statutory violation with only speculative harm. True, Section 1793.01 requires an express warranty to commence on the date of delivery, and Defendant’s express warranty begins on the date of purchase. But mere statutory violation without accompanying harm cannot confer standing." A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KeFckW HARPER WOODS, MI: 32A District Court's Rule 12(b)(1) Motion Timely ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as JAMES CARLOCK, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HARPER WOODS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-11122 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Robert J. White of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted 32A District Court's motion for reconsideration of the July 29, 2024 order issued by the previous district judge striking its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) as untimely. James Carlock commenced this putative 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 class action against, among others, Michigan's 32A District Court for imposing unlawful bail conditions that resulted in his pretrial detention without probable cause. The Court received this case on reassignment from another district judge. According to the Court, although it failed to adhere to a stipulated order setting the timeframe for filing a responsive pleading, 32A District Court's Rule 12(b)(1) motion was predicated upon Eleventh Amendment immunity, which sounds in subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court finds 32A District Court is correct -- the previous district judge made a mistake of law when she struck the Rule 12(b)(1) motion as untimely. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w3fkos from PacerMonitor.com. HEALTH CARE: Seeks Leave for Reconsideration of Class Cert Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to reconsider interlocutory order regarding class certification. The Defendant is a member-owned health insurance company in the United States. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c1ldqb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Auerbach, Esq. Christy S. McCann, Esq. BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN, P.C. 201 West Railroad Street, Suite 300 Missoula, MT 59802 Telephone: (406) 728-1694 Facsimile: (406) 728-5475 E-mail: daniel@bkbh.com christy@bkbh.com - and - Martin J. Bishop, Esq. Robert C. Deegan, Esq. William J. Sheridan, Esq. Ally P. Allegretto, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606-7507 Telephone: (312) 207-1000 Facsimile: (312) 207-6400 E-mail: mbishop@reedsmith.com rdeegan@reedsmith.com wsheridan@reedsmith.com aallegretto@reedsmith.com HIGH 5 GAMES: Court Narrows Claims in Larsen Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington grants in part and denies in part High 5 Games, LLC, and High 5 Entertainment, LLC's partial motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the case captioned as RICK LARSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PTT, LLC (d/b/a HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC), and HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-05275-TMC (W.D. Wash.). More than seven years after this class action suit began, and following a jury trial on damages for his original claims, Plaintiff Rick Larsen resumes his remaining claims -- which the Court previously stayed and bifurcated -- against Defendant High 5 Games ("H5G"), a developer of "social casino" games, and its subsidiary, Defendant High 5 Entertainment LLC ("H5E"). On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed his complaint against H5G seeking certification of a class of all persons in Washington who purchased and lost virtual coins playing H5G's social casino games, High 5 Casino and High 5 Vegas. He alleged that H5G's operation of social casino applications in Washington (1) constituted an illegal gambling operation -- meaning that H5G is liable for damages under the state's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, RCW 4.24.070, (2) violated the state's Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.010, et seq. because the games are illegal gambling harmful to the public interest, and (3) unjustly enriched H5G with the sale of virtual coins. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to certify a "Damages Class" and "Injunctive Class" in January 2021. The "Damages Class" comprises all Washington individuals who purchased virtual coins in High 5 Casino or High 5 Vegas after April 9, 2014. On Dec. 12, 2024, the Court ruled that Larsen lacked standing to sue H5E for alleged injuries to the Class after Oct. 1, 2022 because he did not play or purchase virtual coins from High 5 Casino or High 5 Vegas once H5E operated the games. On the same day, the Court bifurcated "new allegations" in Larsen's proposed Third Amended Complaint regarding: (1) H5E's alter ego liability for pre-October 2022 transactions, and (2) a Uniform Voidable Transactions Act claim against H5G and H5E. The Court stayed resolution of these two claims until after the damages trial. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add alter ego allegations and a UVTA claim. Larsen did not reference his unjust enrichment claim against H5G in the trial brief. After a weeklong trial in February 2025, the jury awarded Larsen, as named Plaintiff, $7,470.50 in actual damages and $4,183.48 in enhanced damages. The jury also awarded the Class $17,742,855.64 in actual damages and $7,185,856.53 in enhanced damages. The Court then invited briefing on how to apply the CPA's statutory cap to the enhanced damages award before entering judgment on the jury's verdict. On June 11, 2025, the Court denied H5G's motion to vacate the enhanced damages award or apply the statutory cap. The Court entered judgment on the jury's verdict under Rule 54(b). On Feb. 28, 2025, Defendants moved the Court to partially dismiss the remaining claims in Larsen's Third Amended Complaint. The parties agree that the Court dismissed all of Larsen's direct liability claims against H5E for lack of standing. Defendants argue that Larsen abandoned his direct claim of unjust enrichment against H5G when he failed to pursue it -- or even mention it -- at the February 2025 jury trial, and that the claim should therefore be dismissed. Larsen asserts that because the February 2025 jury trial was limited to damages and the Court bifurcated Plaintiff's remaining claims for later determination, his actions cannot be construed as abandoning the unjust enrichment claim. He also points out that as a claim in equity, unjust enrichment could not have been tried by the jury so failing to raise it at trial also does not show abandonment. The Court finds neither of Larsen's counterarguments persuasive and agrees with Defendants that he abandoned his unjust enrichment claim against H5G. According to Judge Cartwright, "Larsen abandoned his unjust enrichment claim when he had multiple opportunities to raise the claim before, during, and after trial and failed to do so. By failing to include his unjust enrichment claim in the pretrial order, Larsen chose a position that removed the issue from the case." Having already dismissed Larsen's unjust enrichment claim against H5E for lack of standing in the Court's prior Order, Defendants' motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim against H5E is denied as moot. Because the Court finds Larsen abandoned his unjust enrichment claim against H5G, the motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim against H5G is granted. Larsen's unjust enrichment claim against H5G is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NFA7fJ from PacerMonitor.com. HYATT CORPORATION: Mayfield Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Phillip Mayfield, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV12316 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01736-CSK. The Plaintiff asserts 9 causes of action in his Complaint against Defendant: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Vacation Wages at the Final Rate; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; and Unfair Business Practices. The Plaintiff's Ninth Cause of Action is based on an alleged violation of the Unfair Business Practices, specifically the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael Afar, Esq. Michael A. Sigall, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: mafar@seyfarth.com msigall@seyfarth.com - and - Brian P. Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com I3 VERTICALS: Hess Suit Removed to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Suzanne Hess, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I3 VERTICALS, LLC; CP-DBS, LLC, d/b/a PAYSCHOOLS, and other related entities, Case No. 610737/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03469. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants operate "PaySchools," a school payment processing platform used by public schools throughout New York and other states to facilitate meal purchases for students. The Complaint asserts that Defendants improperly charge allegedly excessive "junk fees" to parents and caregivers for each payment transaction processed through the PaySchools platform, including fees added to auto-replenishment transactions. The Plaintiff contends that these fees are not reasonably related to Defendants' actual costs of payment processing or platform maintenance but are instead designed to generate profit at the expense of working families. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts five causes of action on behalf of herself and a proposed class of New York citizens: Violation of N.Y. General Business Law; Breach of Contract; Unjust Enrichment; Conversion & Theft of Property; and (Fraud by Material Omission.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Peter G. Siachos, Esq. John T. Mills, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP One Battery Park Plaza 28th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 269-5500 Facsimile: (212) 269-5505 Email: psiachos@grsm.com jtmills@grsm.com INSCIENCE SOLUTIONS: Plascencia Sues Over Deceptive Protein Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ARMANDO PLASCENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSCIENCE SOLUTIONS LLC dba Upnourish, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05533 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Sport Plant Protein and Plant Based Complete Protein powders. According to the complaint, the Defendant's Protein powders are misbranded and falsely advertised because they feature deceptive protein claims on the front label without presenting a Recommended Daily Value of protein contained in each serving that is corrected for protein digestibility. The Defendant is required under 21 C.F.R. Sec. 101.9(c)(7) to report a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS)-corrected percentage of the Recommended Daily Value (%DRV) in the Nutrition or Supplements Facts panels of the products because of the protein claim on the front label. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the Protein powders or would not have paid premium for the product, says the suit. InScience Solutions, LLC, doing business as Upnourish, is a manufacturer of protein powders, with its principal place of business in Allen, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com INTER-CON SECURITY: Court Enters Discovery Order in Rodriguez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Eric Komitee of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a discovery order in the case captioned as PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, -against- INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-08355-EK-LB (E.D.N.Y.) as to whether the plaintiff is covered by the Federal Arbitration Act's Section 1 exemption. Plaintiff Pedro Rodriguez worked as a security agent at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He brings a putative class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against his former employer, Inter-Con Security Systems. Inter-Con has moved to stay this case and compel arbitration, under the FAA pursuant to an arbitration agreement Rodriguez signed. Rodriguez does not dispute that he signed the agreement. Instead, he invokes (among other bases for avoiding arbitration) the FAA's Section 1 exemption. Rodriguez believes he is covered by Section 1's residual clause, which the Supreme Court has limited to "transportation workers." In this case, the Court did grant Rodriguez leave to amend his complaint and plead facts regarding his status as a transportation worker, and the parties proceeded to brief the issue. Rodriguez included allegations, for example, that security agents at JFK screen employees who load goods onto airplanes and ensure the safety of passengers and goods traveling through the airport. Still, it remains unclear that the issue can be decided on the face of the complaint. Some limited discovery may assist in the determination of whether security agents at JFK are transportation workers. Inter-Con asserts that by his own allegations, Rodriguez was not transporting goods. However, that assertion is not dispositive, as the Court is aware of no binding appellate authority requiring such a conclusion. And there is at least some out-of-circuit authority for the opposite conclusion. The Court orders as follows: Accordingly, the parties are directed to file any additional material that they believe is relevant to a determination of whether Rodriguez is covered by the Section exemption. This may include documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, or any other materials contemplated by Rule 56(c). Any such material shall be due by July 25, 2025. Rodriguez may file a supplemental letter addressing any such submissions by Aug. 8, 2025, and Inter-Con may file a supplemental letter by Aug. 18, 2025. Letters should not exceed five pages. A copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oGzi3a INTERPRIVATE ACQUISITION: $14MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE INTERPRIVATE ACQUISITION CORP. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED C.A. No. 2024-0221-LWW SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO: PURCHASED, ACQUIRED, OR HELD INTERPRIVATE CLASS A COMMON STOCK BETWEEN AUGUST 16, 2019 AND MARCH 12, 2021 AND HELD REDEEMABLE COMMON STOCK ON MARCH 9, 2021 (THE "CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS") AND ARE NOT OTHERWISE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS. THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT JUNK MAIL, AN ADVERTISEMENT, OR SOLICITATION FROM A LAWYER. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE LITIGATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE. TO MAXIMIZE YOUR POTENTIAL RECOVERY, YOU MUST SUBMIT A VALID PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM ("PROOF OF CLAIM") POSTMARKED, SUBMITTED ONLINE, OR RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, 2025. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on September 12, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. ET, before the Honorable Lori W. Will, Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled as In re InterPrivate Acquisition Corp. Stockholder Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 2024-0221-LWW (the "Action") as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated December 6, 2024 ("Stipulation"), as amended April 28, 20251 for $14,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered with prejudice; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of: (I) Pendency and Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Notice"), which is discussed below), and, if so, in what amount; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. This Summary Notice relates to a proposed settlement of claims in a consolidated class action brought by investors in InterPrivate Acquisition Corp. Class A Common Stock. The Action alleges that Defendants violated applicable law by breaching their fiduciary duties and impairing InterPrivate shareholders' redemption and voting rights, including through proxy solicitation materials containing false and misleading representations and omissions, resulting in damages to Class Members. Defendants deny each and every claim and contention alleged in the Actions and deny any misconduct or wrongdoing whatsoever. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED INTERPRIVATE CLASS A COMMON STOCK BETWEEN AUGUST 16, 2019 AND MARCH 12, 2021 AND HELD REDEEMABLE COMMON STOCK ON MARCH 9, 2021, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE LITIGATION. To maximize your distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked or received no later than September 11, 2025) or electronically via the website (no later than September 11, 2025). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by September 11, 2025, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving your full pro rata share of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of the Actions. If you are a member of the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and releases entered in the Actions, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.InterPrivateStockholderSettlement.com, or by writing to: InterPrivate Stockholder Settlement Settlement Administrator c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173040 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Theodore J. Pintar 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 ROBBINS LLP Aaron Dumas 5060 Shoreham Place Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. Kelly L. Tucker 123 S. Justison Street 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE AWARD TO PLAINTIFFS FOR REPRESENTING THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY AUGUST 21, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. PLEASE NOTE: The Class is a non-opt-out settlement class pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2). Accordingly, Class Members do not have the right to exclude themselves from the Class. DATED: June 13, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IQ DATA: Must Comply with Discovery Order in Nelson FDCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge F. Kay Behm of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan accepts and adopts the the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and grants plaintiff's motion for sanctions and motion to compel in the case captioned as ELIZABETH NELSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-12710 (E.D. Mich.). Plaintiff Elizabeth Nelson filed this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons on Nov. 9, 2022, alleging Defendant I.Q. Data International, Inc. violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Specifically, Nelson alleges that I.Q. illegally seeks to add a 5% per annum rate of interest to the principal amount of the debt, regardless of whether the creditor-debtor contract at issue provided for such an interest rate to be applied upon any breach. Discovery in this case was ongoing since November 2023 and continued until January 2025. And for much if not most of that time, I.Q. Data ignored its discovery obligations, objected to discovery requests, flouted orders to compel discovery, and likely misrepresented to the Court its ability to comply with discovery requests and orders. On Sept. 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and motion for sanctions. On Jan. 28, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended granting that motion and that default be entered against Defendant as a sanction of last resort after Defendant repeatedly ignored the court's previous orders compelling discovery. Defendant filed objections to that report and recommendation. Defendant takes issue with how the Magistrate Judge characterized their nonresponsive "boilerplate" objections to particular interrogatories as an early sign of Defendant's unwillingness to participate in discovery in good faith. It also objects to how the Magistrate Judge characterized the record regarding their claimed inability to later produce responses to those same interrogatories. It disagrees with how the Magistrate Judge characterized a delay in hearing argument on the latest motion for sanctions when the parties jointly requested additional time to conduct settlement negotiations. According to the Court, as soon as the Magistrate Judge ruled on the first motion to compel responses to those interrogatories, the question was no longer whether that first set of answers was made in good faith. The issue became the failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge's orders. To the extent that the Magistrate Judge found that Defendant's boilerplate objections were from the start legally improper, that finding was not erroneous, because the report and recommendation explains why such objections were essentially meaningless. Nor was the finding that these represented the first signs of Defendant's intransigence incorrect, given the fact that Defendant had still not, a year later, produced full responses to interrogatories 6 and 7 to identify putative subclass members. The Court overrules Defendant's objections, grants Plaintiff's motion for sanctions and motion to compel, and enters further orders consistent with this opinion at the end of this opinion as follows: 1. The Court directs the Clerk to enter default against defendant. If a class is certified, damages will be assessed for entry of a default judgment. 2. I.Q. Data must fully answer Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 7 or face an order of contempt under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) and further sanctions under 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). 3. I.Q. Data must either (1) submit a proposed order stipulating that it will not dispute that 1% of its net worth is $500,000 or more, or (2) fully answer the discovery requests about its net worth. Failure to do at least one of those options will be treated as contempt of court under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vii). 4. The Court directs the Clerk to strike Defendant's answer. 5. I.Q. Data and its attorneys must pay Nelson's attorney's fees and costs. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z9uS8g from PacerMonitor.com. JB HUNT: Class Settlement in Taylor Gets Prelim. Approval --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE TAYLOR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-04832-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Matthew J. Skahill entered an order granting preliminary approval of settlement and directing notice to settlement class members: "All employees of [Defendant] or applicants for employment with the Defendant residing in the United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) who were the subject of a background report that was used by Defendant to make an adverse employment decision regarding such employee or applicant for employment, and for whom the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant failed to provide the employee or applicant a copy of their consumer report or a copy of the FCRA summary of rights at least five business days before it took such adverse action, from June 22, 2020 through Sept. 11, 2024." The Plaintiff's request for: -- the conditional appointment of Bruce E. Taylor as representative of the Settlement Class is granted. -- the conditional appointment of James A. Francis, John Soumilas, and Lauren KW Brennan of Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., and Robert P. Cocco as settlement class counsel is granted. The Plaintiff filed the complaint in this class action in the Superior Court of New Jersey on June 22, 2022. The Plaintiff asserted claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act "on behalf of applicants for employment with" Defendant for its alleged reliance on certain "consumer report[s] to make an 'adverse' employment decision without" providing job applicants an opportunity to dispute the content of the reports. J.B. is an American transportation and logistics company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NkT6p5 at no extra charge.[CC] JB HUNT: Settlement in Taylor FCRA Suit Gets Preliminary Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Matthew J. Skahill of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement in the case captioned as BRUCE TAYLOR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-04832-MJS (D.N.J.). Plaintiff filed the complaint in this class action in the Superior Court of New Jersey on June 22, 2022. He asserted claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1681, et seq., "on behalf of applicants for employment with" Defendant for its alleged reliance on certain "consumer report[s] to make an 'adverse' employment decision without" providing job applicants an opportunity to dispute the content of the report. Defendant removed the litigation to this Court on July 29, 2022. Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint alleging (1) failure to provide pre-adverse action notice under FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681b(b)(3) (on behalf of Plaintiff and the class); and (2) negligence (on behalf of Plaintiff individually). The parties engaged in discovery and on November 8, 2024, filed a motion for approval of the present settlement. Based on Defendant's records, the parties estimate the class consists of 14,915 members, 5,681 of whom appear to not have received any pre-adverse action notice or a copy of the report before suffering adverse employment outcomes. In exchange for a release of all class claims, Defendant agrees to establish a settlement fund of $5,000,000 to compensate class members, settlement administrators, and class counsel. Specifically, $2,239,966.32 is reserved for pro rata payments to members of the No Notice Subgroup, $923,400 for automatic payments to class members who are not part of the No Notice Subgroup, $15,000 for Plaintiff as class representative including for an individual settlement of his claims, $52,000 for settlement administration, and approximately one-third of the fund, plus $26,367.01, for attorneys' fees and expenses, subject to Court approval, with any remaining funds delivered to the National Consumer Law Center as cy pres recipient, subject to Court approval. Additionally, Defendant agrees that since the filing of this lawsuit, it has reviewed and revised its policies and procedures to comply with FCRA section 1681(b)(3) for both job applicants and existing employees, and as part of this settlement agrees to continue to review, improve and implement such policies and procedures. The parties request that the class be certified for settlement purposes only. Plaintiff's request for preliminary approval of the settlement class for settlement purposes only is granted as to the following class: All employees of Defendant or applicants for employment with Defendant residing in the United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) who were the subject of a background report that was used by Defendant to make an adverse employment decision regarding such employee or applicant for employment, and for whom Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to provide the employee or applicant a copy of their consumer report or a copy of the FCRA summary of rights at least five business days before it took such adverse action, from June 22, 2020 through September 11, 2024, Plaintiff's request for the conditional appointment of Bruce E. Taylor as representative of the Settlement Class is granted. Plaintiff's request for the conditional appointment of James A. Francis, John Soumilas, and Lauren KW Brennan of Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., and Robert P. Cocco as settlement class counsel is granted. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of Verita Global as Settlement Administrator is granted. Plaintiff's request for approval of the proposed notice plan is granted. Within the latter of fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order and Defendant's receipt of the Settlement Administrator's Form 1099 and wiring instructions for the payment, Defendant must make an initial deposit of $50,000 toward the Settlement Payment Amount into the Escrow Account to create the Settlement Fund. Any Settlement Class Member wishing to object to the fairness of the Agreement must make a valid written objection postmarked no later than September 27, 2025. To exercise this objection right, the Class Member must provide written notice of the objection via first class mail to the Clerk of Court, Class Counsel, and Defendant's Counsel. The Court will conduct the Final Fairness Hearing on November 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3C of the Mitchell H. Cohen Building & U.S. Courthouse, 4th & Cooper Streets, Camden, New Jersey 08101, to determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; whether a judgment should be entered approving the Agreement and dismissing the claims of the class; and, separately, whether the applications by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses and for a service award to the Representative Plaintiff should be approved; and to rule upon any other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. A copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YQtxDp from PacerMonitor.com. JJ'S WASTE: Bell Sues Over to Recover Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Chadrick Bell, iindividually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JJ'S WASTE & RECYCLING OF TEXAS LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-02897 (S.D. Tex., June 20, 2025), is brought to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended ("FLSA"). Although the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. During the relevant time period, the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members for the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, the Defendant's regular practice--including during weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members worked and recorded hours in excess of 40 (not counting hours worked "off-the-clock")--was (and is) to deduct a 30-minute meal-period from Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members' daily time even though they regularly performed compensable work (and continue to perform) "off the clock" through their respective meal-period breaks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by JJ's Waste. JJ's Waste is a full-service solid waste company providing waste collection, recycling, and disposal services to a commercial, industrial, and residential customers in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Fax: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wins Bid to Dismiss Okeechobee TCPA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the motion of Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc. to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as S.A.S.B. CORP. d/b/a OKEECHOBEE DISCOUNT DRUGS, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-21124-ZNQ-JTQ (D.N.J.). The amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. On Oct. 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed its initial class action complaint against Defendants, alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff is a family-owned pharmacy. Defendants are subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson. On Oct. 20, 2020, Plaintiff's fax machine received a two-page "advertisement" that was allegedly sent by Defendants or someone acting on Defendants' behalf. Both pages of the Fax recite an individual's name and telephone number at the top. The Fax purportedly promotes the sale of Xarelto, a prescription medication licensed exclusively by Janssen, as well as the use of Janssen's CarePath program, including the program's website. CarePath is a patient support program that offers free savings options and resources for patients to learn about, afford, and stay on their medication. Its website has patient and provider portals. The Fax promotes CarePath's services for specific Johnson & Johnson products, gives pharmacists information to pass along to patients about the program, and is designed to influence Plaintiff and other pharmacists to recommend CarePath to patients. Plaintiff did not give permission or an express invitation for Defendants to send advertising material to its fax machine. Defendants filed a prior motion to dismiss on Jan. 4, 2024. The Court granted that motion, partly on the basis that the Fax was merely an informational message, and not an advertisement. The Court also found that even if Plaintiff could cure the Complaint and allege facts to somehow support its claim that the Fax is an advertisement, the TCPA claim must also be dismissed because the pleading is deficient of factual allegations to support that Defendants were the sender of the Fax. Plaintiff timely filed an Amended Complaint on Sept. 30, 2024. In this case, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Fax is an advertisement because it seeks to promote future sales of Xarelto. The Amended Complaint also alleges that the Fax promotes the use of the Janssen CarePath program. Plaintiff's new allegations present additional facts: that Defendants have aggressively asserted their patent rights; that Xarelto is expensive; and that Defendants have spent a lot of money in advertising for Xarelto. Defendants' argue that the additions to the Amended Complaint have not cured the deficiencies identified in the Court's earlier decision, namely that its allegations are conclusory and fail to plausibly plead that the Fax is an advertisement. The Court finds Amended Complaint fares no better than the initial one. Nothing in the Amended Complaint alters the Court's prior view that the Fax fails to notify a potential buyer that he or she can purchase a product, good, or service from Defendants. Moreover, the fact that a phone number and a website are provided in the Fax is not dispositive of whether it is an advertisement. Accordingly, the Court concludes the Fax is merely an informational message, and not an advertisement. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K9eVmk from PacerMonitor.com. JOSHUA KAUL: Court Tosses Vales Probation Suit Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied without prejudice Willie L. Vales, Jr.'s complaint captioned as WILLIE L. VALES, JR., JOHN DOE 1, and, JOHN DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. JOSHUA KAUL, BRIAN HAYES, MARTHA CARLSON, SECRETARY OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE TRUST FUNDS, WISCONSIN RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and KNOWN UNNAMED REPRESENTATIVE CO-DEFENDANTS, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-223-wmc (W.D. Wis.). Vales' motion for a preliminary injunction is also denied. Plaintiff Willie L. Vales, Jr., a prisoner in the Ozaukee County Jail is representing himself, but seeks to pursue a proposed class action civil rights lawsuit against the following defendants: Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul; Director of the Department of Hearings and Appeals Brian Hayes; Administrative Law Judge Martha Carlson; the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds; the Wisconsin Retirement System; and known unnamed representative co-defendants. Specifically, Vales alleges that the defendants violated his and others' Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by revoking probation under an administrative, rather than judicial, proceeding authorized in Wis. Stat. Sec. 973.10(2). Vales seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages in the amount of $11.48 per minute or $500,000.00 per victim for time lost as the result of probation revocation proceedings conducted under Wis. Stat. Sec. 973.10(2) without the right to a jury trial. He also appears to argue that such revocations violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and other principles that preclude multiple punishments. Vales has also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to suspend all proceedings under Wis. Stat. Sec. 973.10(2). Because plaintiff does not allege that his probation revocation was challenged and set aside either by a state tribunal or in a habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, judgment in his favor in this Court would necessarily imply that his probation revocation was invalid. Thus, his complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court finds. Still, since the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider his claim under Sec. 1983, the dismissal will be without prejudice and he may attempt to pursue relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=94rt6Y from PacerMonitor.com. JOSIE MARAN: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Fagnani Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOSIE MARAN COSMETICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05059 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.josiemaran.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Josie Maran Cosmetics, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JPMORGAN CHASE: Palladino Appeals Reconsideration Order to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PALLADINO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for reconsideration and request for leave to amend in the lawsuit entitled John Palladino, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-1215, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco, State of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs allege on behalf of a putative class of Visa or MasterCard cardholders who are citizens of California and have made retail purchasers in California, that Defendants conspired to fix the price of credit/debit-card interchange fees charged to consumers' credit/debit-card accounts and fail to disclose the fees charged, in violation of California's Cartwright Act, California Business and Professions Code, and California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, disgorgement, and injunctive relief. On Jan. 30, 2023, the Defendants removed the action to federal court, alleging: (1) federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), and (2) automatic removal pursuant to the Federal Edge Act of 1919 as amended in 1933. On Feb. 15, 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter from the Northern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. On Feb. 9, 2024, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration. On July 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Marutollo filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) to suggest that the Defendants' joint motion be granted in part and denied in part. On Dec. 30, 2024, Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an Order adopting the R&R, which (1) denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; (2) granted PNC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; (3) denied the Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery; and (4) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Jan. 13, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Dec. 30 Order and request leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which Judge Brodie denied on May 12, 2025. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' proposed amendments fail to sufficiently allege participation in the market where anticompetitive conduct occurs and the Court accordingly denies leave to amend because it would be futile. For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and denies the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The appellate case is entitled Palladino v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Case No. 25-1490, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 13, 2025. [BN] Defendants-Appellees JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al. are represented by: Boris Bershteyn, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 - and - Michael B. Miller, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 - and - Benjamin R. Nagin, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 - and - Amy N. Vegari, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 - and - Teresa Bonder, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 55 2nd Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Michelle Ann Mantine, Esq. REED SMITH LLP Reed Smith Centre, Suite 1200 225 5th Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 - and - Abby Rudzin, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 - and - Julian Kleinbrodt, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Matthew Eisenstein, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 - and - Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 KENNECOTT UTAH: Bascom Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Austin Bascom, individually and for others similarly situated v. KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00505-DBB (D. Utah, June 24, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. But The Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek. Instead, The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses and shift differentials that it fails to include in these employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (The Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has employed Bascom as a haulage operator since October 2021. Kennecott runs "a world-class, integrated copper mining operation which includes a concentrator, smelter and refinery and tailings storage facility" that it touts as "one of the top producing mines in the world."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC 40 South 600 East Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Phone: (801) 415-9909 Fax: (801) 303-7324 Email: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com KEVIN COPPINGER: Class Cert Responses in Caron Due Sept. 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caron, et al., v. Coppinger, Case No. 1:25-cv-11075 (D. Mass., Filed April 23, 2025), the Hon. Judge George A. Otoole, Jr. entered an order granting assented to motion for extension of time to Sept. 8, 2025, to File Response/Reply to Motion to Certify Class. -- Responses due by Swept. 8, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] KEVIN COPPINGER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN CARON and ADAM COCHRANE, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. KEVIN COPPINGER, in his official capacity as Essex County Sheriff, Case No. 1:25-cv-11075-GAO (D. Mass.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class to Monday, Sept. 8, 2025, and an extension of time for the Plaintiffs to file a reply brief, if any, to Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025. The Defendant seeks additional time to respond to the motion to certify class in light of the additional time needed to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint and assess its position on class certification. The requested extension may avert unnecessary briefing or potential class discovery and will conserve both the Court's and the parties' resources. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 23, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed the motion to certify class that same day. The Defendant's answer is presently due on June 23, 2025. The Defendant has sought an extension of time, with the Plaintiffs' assent, to respond to the Complaint until August 7, 2025. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kN1ttq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Katherine M. Fahey, Esq. Rauvin A. Johl, Esq. Government Bureau One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 963-2078 Facsimile: (617) 963-2441 E-mail: Katherine.Fahey@mass.gov Rauvin.Johl@mass.gov KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Alfonzo Hernandez, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees v. KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV17931 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2025), is brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants' violated of the Labor Code based on Defendants' failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failure to pay overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages; failure to pay wages for accrued paid sick time at the regular rate of pay; failure to pay accrued and vested vacation and/or paid-time-off (PTO) wages; statutory penalties for failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position at Defendants' location in Yolo County from February 2024, until February 6, 2025. KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC., operates in Los Angeles County and employed Plaintiff and aggrieved employees in Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Eric D. Tims, 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 vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jldein@lelawfirm.com etims@lelawfirm.com KNESKO LLC: Fagnani Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------ MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNESKO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05060 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://knesko.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Knesko, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal KRISPY KREME: Banks Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------ Tyreece Banks and Maria Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00443 (W.D.N.C., June 23, 2025), is brought against Krispy Kreme for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated current and former job applicants and employees' ("Class Members") personally identifiable information ("PII") from hackers. On June 16, 2025, Krispy Kreme filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. On the same date, Krispy Kreme also sent out data breach letters (the "Notice") to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. Based on the Notice, Krispy Kreme detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems on November 29, 2024. In response, the company conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files on or around the same date (the "Data Breach"). Yet, Krispy Kreme waited seven months to notify the public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiffs and "Class Members" had no idea for seven months that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves, including but not limited to, name, date of birth, and Social Security number that Krispy Kreme collected and maintained. Therefore, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and Class Members provided their Private Information to Krispy Kreme. Krispy Kreme, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is a premier doughnut company that serves thousands of customers in across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq Tyler J. Bean, Esq SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com KRISPY KREME: Bobo Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII & PHI ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fortesa Bobo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00434 (W.D.N.C., June 20, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former employees' ("Class Members") sensitive information, including personally identifiable information ("PII") such as name, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's licenses or state ID numbers, financial account information, financial account access information, credit or debit card information, credit or debit card information in combination with a security code, username and password to a financial account, passport number, digital signature, username and password, email address and password, biometric data, USCIS or Alien Registration Number, US military ID number, and protected health information ("PHI") including medical or health information, and health insurance information. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On November 29, 2024, Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity on its network systems, causing the wrongful exposure of 161,676 individuals' Private Information stored therein ("Data Breach"). The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its employees' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided her Private Information to Defendant in order to obtain employment from Defendant. The Defendant is multinational doughnut and coffee-house chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC P.O. Box 54 Asheville, NC 28804 Phone: (828) 316-6902 Email: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-3200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com KRISPY KREME: Bogan Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------ Jalisa Bogan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00438 (W.D.N.C., June 23, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, full names, social security number, date of birth, phone number, digital signature, and email address (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). With this action, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on November 29, 2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected ("Data Breach"). The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving benefits from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from state and federal statutes and regulations, and common law principles. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit from this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit from this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. The Defendant is a multinational doughnut franchise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca K. Burne, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com fburne@forthepeople.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr Ste 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com KRISPY KREME: Peace Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Lily Peace, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00436 (W.D.N.C., June 21, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former employees' ("Class Members") sensitive information, including personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"). The PII includes Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's licenses or state ID numbers, financial account information, financial account access information, credit or debit card information, credit or debit card information in combination with a security code, username and password to a financial account, passport number, digital signature, username and password, email address and password, biometric data, USCIS or Alien Registration Number, US military ID number, and the PHI includes medical or health information, and health insurance information. PI and PHI are collectively referred to as "Private Information." By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On November 29, 2024, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity on its network systems, causing the wrongful exposure of 161,676 individuals' Private Information stored therein ("Data Breach"). The Defendant failed to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to the Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its employees' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of the Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided her Private Information to Defendant in order to obtain employment from Defendant. The Defendant is multinational doughnut and coffee-house chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC P.O. Box 54 Asheville, NC 28804 Phone: (828) 316-6902 Email: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Fax: (786) 879-7520 Email: mweekes@milberg.com L&M LOGISTICS: Pena Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hector Pena, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L&M LOGISTICS GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware Stock Corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV12235 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05637. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; violation of Labor Code; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Max Fischer, Esq. Brian D. Fahy, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: max.fischer@morganlewis.com brian.fahy@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com - and - Curie Lee, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: +1.650.843.4000 Fax: +1.650.843.4001 Email: curie.lee@morganlewis.com LAKEVIEW LOAN: Idris Sues Over Disclosed Clients' Info to 3rd Party ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELIJAH IDRIS, GOWAN MCLIN, and JUSTIN BICKHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05087 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express and implied contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, breach of confidence, and violations of Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Consumer Protection Law, Consumer Privacy Act, Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of disclosing the personally identifiable information (PII) and financial information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta, Google, LLC, Microsoft Corp., Tavant, and LogRocket, without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant used its website to blatantly collect and disclose customers' personal and financial information to third parties uninvolved in the provision of mortgage services, entirely without their knowledge or authorization. The Defendant did so by knowingly and secretly configuring and implementing code-based tracking devices into its website. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC is a mortgage lender and servicer, with its principal place of business in Coral Gables, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Lyons, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: nlyons@cohenmalad.com vmiller@cohenmalad.com - and - Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 2261 Market Street, Suite 22946 San Francisco, CA, 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com LEAFFILTER NORTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Reussow Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT REUSSOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01910-JLK (D. Colo., June 18, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated misclassified workers in Colorado who, due to Defendant's misclassification scheme, were not paid all earned overtime pay for time they worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals worked for Defendant performing work as outside salespersons selling gutters for residential housing and related services. The Defendant or an entity related to Defendant performed the actual installation of the gutters. The Defendant misclassified these workers as independent contractors instead of employees, says the suit. The Defendant failed to pay the misclassified workers in accordance with the overtime provisions of the FLSA, because it did not pay the misclassified workers overtime pay when they worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks, the suit contends. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately June 2021 to early 2024. Leaffilter North, LLC is in the business of providing home improvement services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. David T. Butsch, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 7777 Bonhomme Ave, Ste. 1300 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-5700 E-mail: butsch@butschroberts.com roberts@butschroberts.com - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com LEE ENTERPRISES: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Suit for $9.5MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Kauffman of Iowa Capital Dispatch reports that the Iowa-based newspaper company Lee Enterprises has agreed to pay $9.5 million to subscribers alleging privacy violations and is now facing three invasion-of-privacy lawsuits from current or former employees. The three new lawsuits, each filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, allege that Lee, which owns hundreds of newspapers and specialty publications in Iowa and 24 other states, is guilty of negligence, breach of an implied contract, unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy. Lee's Iowa newspapers include the Quad-City Times in Davenport, the Sioux City Journal, the Mason City Globe-Gazette the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier and the Muscatine Journal. Each of the three lawsuits is seeking class-action status in pursuit of damages on behalf of thousands of current and former Lee employees whose personal information is believed to have been accessed by cybercriminals. The three named plaintiffs in the cases are Nicole Church of Colona, Illinois; Declan Lawson of Missoula, Montana; and Anthony Bangert of Wisconsin. According to the lawsuits, on June 3, 2025, Lee began sending letters to current and former employees advising of them that the private information of certain employees had been accessed by others without authorization. The lawsuits allege the letters omitted details such as the cause of the data breach, the system vulnerabilities that had been exploited, and any remedial measures undertaken to guard against additional security breaches. In one of the cases, the plaintiff asserts the "purported disclosure amounts to no real disclosure at all" in that it fails to provide critical facts surrounding the incident, limiting workers' ability to take steps to mitigate any damages that might result. Lee, the lawsuits claim, could have prevented the data breach by properly securing and encrypting the files and file servers containing the employees' private information and by training its employees on standard cybersecurity practices. The data breach, one of the plaintiffs alleges, could have been avoided had Lee "bothered to implement basic monitoring and detection systems, which then would have stopped the data breach or greatly reduced its impact." Lee Enterprises has yet to file a response to the lawsuits, and Tracy Rouch, director of communications for Lee, said the company does not comment on pending litigation. However, Lee has stated that it has incurred $2 million in expenses related to restoring data systems in the wake of the February 2025 cyberattack. The company has also indicated the data breach affected the company's finances by hampering its ability to bill customers and pay vendors. The Qilin ransomware group has claimed credit for the attack and alleged that it gained access to 350 gigabytes of data. It also shared samples of what it claimed was data stolen from the company, including contracts, financial spreadsheets, non-disclosure agreements and other confidential files. In SEC filings and in a filing with the attorney general of Maine, Lee indicated the data breach involved documents containing personally identifiable information related to 39,779 individuals. The documents may include a mix of names, Social Security numbers, driver's license data, financial account numbers, medical information and health insurance data, according to the Maine attorney general. The plaintiffs Lawson and Bangert are each represented by the law firm of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese of West Des Moines. Church is represented by Josh Christensen of RSH Legal in Cedar Rapids. Lee agrees to $9.5 million payout in subscriber case It's not the first time data systems at Lee have been hacked. In 2020, Iranian cybercriminals allegedly gained access to the company's systems as part of a what prosecutors claimed was a campaign to spread disinformation related to the 2020 presidential election. Two Iranian nationals were later charged with conspiracy to commit computer fraud and abuse, intimidate voters, and transmit interstate threats. Court records indicate the criminal case remains open and active. In December 2022, a group of subscribers to Lee newspapers sued the company, alleging it had failed to disclose that their personal identifying information was being captured by various tracking methods embedded in Lee websites and then transferred to the social-media company Facebook where it could be accessed by others. The lawsuit, which attained class-action status, alleged individuals could use fairly basic web-browsing tools to see the titles of whatever video content had triggered the initial exchange of information between Lee and Facebook, providing an indirect link between named Facebook users and the specific videos those users had watched on Lee websites. The plaintiffs in that case sought a temporary injunction requiring Lee to immediately remove tracking tools from the company's websites and to obtain the appropriate consent from subscribers for any information sharing that may take place. In March 2025, the parties in that case reached a proposed settlement which they presented to the court for preliminary approval. According to public court filings, the proposed settlement grew out of an all-day mediation session in November 2024 before Judge Wayne R. Andersen in Fort Myers, Florida. Andersen later provided a mediator's proposal that recommended the matter be resolved by Lee or its insurer paying $9.5 million to settle the case, and the parties agreed. Court records indicate the proposed settlement involves 1,528,941 paid subscribers to Lee newspapers who accessed video material on a Lee website at any time between December 2020 through March 4, 2025, and who used Facebook during that same period. In a memorandum supporting court approval of the settlement, the parties state that the "$9,500,000 will yield a significant benefit to each of the participating class members," while avoiding costly litigation that could drag on for years. According to the court records, the settlement agreement also requires revisions to Lee's business practices. A court hearing on final approval of the settlement agreement is now scheduled for Aug. 7, 2025. [GN] LIME ROCK: Chastain, et al. Case to Remain in Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge David L. Russell of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as DAVID CHASTAIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIME ROCK RESOURCES OPERATING COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-00443-R (W.D. Okla.). Plaintiff's Motion is premised entirely on the inapplicability of the Class Action Fairness Act. He states that the amount in controversy must exceed $5,000,000 in class actions for federal courts to have original jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a), federal district courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are of complete diversity. Judge Russell holds, "Here, the named plaintiff is completely diverse from Defendant and seeks damages and fees calculated to be in excess of $75,000. So the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the suit." A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ykOHjd from PacerMonitor.com. LINDE INC: Court Stays Townsend Class Action -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM TOWNSEND, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. LINDE INC., a Delaware corporation; LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-01143-DSF-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order granting joint stipulation to stay action and continue all outstanding deadlines to a date after mediation: 1. Simultaneously with the filing of this Stipulation, the Plaintiff will file a Notice Of Dismissal Pursuant To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c), dismissing LG&E as a defendant in this action without prejudice; 2. The Action is stayed to a date 60 days after mediation which is currently scheduled for Oct. 22, 2025; 3. The Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant LINDE's motion to dismiss filing deadline is continued 60 days after mediation occurs; 4. LINDE's deadline to file its Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss is continued to 74 days after mediation occurs; 5. The Parties' scheduling conference is continued 30 days after mediation occurs; 6. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification filing deadline is vacated; 7. No other deadlines will be set at this juncture pending the outcome of mediation. Linde is a global multinational chemical company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dzgkiQ at no extra charge.[CC] LITTLE LOTUS: Liu Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Wen Lin Liu, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LITTLE LOTUS LLC d/b/a Little Lotus; ALLIANCE RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a Red Lotus; LAWRENCE Y. WANG a/k/a Larry Wang; and BILIAN CHEN a/k/a Bi Lian Chen a/k/a Nia Chen, Case No. 3:25-cv-00990 (D. Conn., June 21, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), Connecticut General Statutes arising from Defendants' various willfully and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices of unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgement interest; and or attorney's fees and cost. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and CMWA by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a sushi chef at Defendants' restaurant, "Red Lotus." ALLIANCE RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a Red Lotus is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com LOVE'S COUNTRY STORES: Wortham Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Love's Country Stores of California. The case is styled as Bryan K. Wortham, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Love's Country Stores of California, Case No. MCV095458 (Cal. Super. Ct., Madera Cty., June 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment for Civil Unlimited." Love's -- https://www.loves.com/ -- has two primary kinds of stores: country stores and travel stops.[BN] MACK TRUCKS: Bennett Sues Over Unpaid Proper Wages -------------------------------------------------- Micah Bennett, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MACK TRUCKS, INC., Case No. 250603015 (Pa., Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., June 24, 2025), is brought against Defendant, seeking all available relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated the PMWA by failing to pay wages for all time associated with various required work activities arising at the beginning and end of the workday within the premises of Defendant's Lehigh Valley Operations/Lehigh Valley Logistics Center facility. The Plaintiff, like other class members, has been generally scheduled to work a minimum of 40 hours per week for Defendant at the LVO/LVLC. The Defendant, as a matter of policy, fails to pay Plaintiff and other class members for all compensable hours as required by the PMWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The Defendant owns and operates a 1.7 million square-foot Lehigh Valley Operations manufacturing plant and Lehigh Valley Logistics Center warehouse facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 MADSEN PRODUCTS: Villalobos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madsen Products, Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Paul Villalobos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Madsen Products, Incorporated, Madsen Products Inc. d/b/a Huntington Beach Mac, Case No. 25STCV18130 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Madsen Steel Wire -- https://www.madsenwire.com/ -- is a full service wire forming company that has been in business since 1938.[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 MALLINCKRODT PLC: $5.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING To: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OF MALLINCKRODT PLC ("MALLINCKRODT") BETWEEN JUNE 17, 2022, AND AUGUST 25, 2023, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that a hearing will be held on October 9, 2025, at 12:30 p.m. EDT before the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, United States District Judge of the District of New Jersey, Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 4W, 402 East State Street Room 2020, Trenton, N.J. 08608, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $5,500,000.00 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and Compensatory Awards to Lead Plaintiffs should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 23, 2025 ("Stipulation"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt between June 17, 2022, and August 25, 2023, both dates inclusive ("Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Mallinckrodt common stock. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Mallinckrodt Securities Litigation, c/o Class Member Correspondence: Mallinckrodt Securities Litigation, c/o Claims Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103, or email: info@MallinckrodtContinentalSecuritiesSettlement.com. You can also download copies of the Long Notice and submit your Proof of Claim online at www.MallinckrodtContinentalSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a properly completed Proof of Claim electronically or postmarked no later than 11:59 ET on October 16, 2025, or electronically no later than 11:59 p.m. EST on October 16, 2025 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received or postmarked no later than September 18, 2025, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and awards to Lead Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Long Notice and filed with the Court on or before September 18, 2025. Please also provide copies of objections to Lead Counsel and Counsel for Defendants listed below. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel listed below. Clerk of the Court Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse 402 East State Street Room 2020 Trenton, NJ 08608 Lead Counsel Brian Calandra POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, Floor 20 New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Email: bcalandra@pomlaw.com Counsel For Defendants Allison M. Wuertz William M. Regan Jacey L. Gottlieb 390 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 918-3000 Email: allison.wuertz@hoganlovells.com william.regan@hoganlovells.com jacey.gottlieb@hoganlovells.com DO NOT TELEPHONE THE DEFENDANTS, THE COURT, OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIMS PROCESS. MARK INSERRA: Pagano Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Austin Pagano, individually and for others similarly situated v. MARK INSERRA, Case No. 1:25-cv-06853 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant under the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Straight Time Employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant did not pay the Straight Time Employees overtime wages. Instead, the Defendant paid the Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek (the Defendant's "straight time for overtime pay scheme"). The Defendant's straight time for overtime pay scheme violates the NYLL by depriving the Straight Time Employees of the "time and a half" overtime premium wages they are owed for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant's failure to provide the Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees with accurate and/or compliant itemized wage statements and/or written notices causes these employees to suffer concrete and cognizable injuries, including covering up the wages they are lawfully owed, preventing them from determining the wages they are lawfully owed, preventing them from determining whether The Defendant took proper deductions from their wages, including tax deductions, and by delaying their ability to remedy the Defendant's underpayment of their wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a senior field coordinator from July 2019 until March 2021 in New York. The Defendant owned and operated Cobalt Energy Services, Inc., which provided consulting services and technical support for nuclear energy operators.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: 312-419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com MAUI BABE INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Mykayla Fagnani, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. MAUI BABE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05193 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2025), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their 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's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because the Defendant's interactive website, https://mauibabe.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, 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. MAUI BABE, INC., operates the Maui Babe online retail store, as well as the Maui Babe interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal MCLEAN MORTGAGE: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Knight Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY KNIGHT and REGINA KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MCLEAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00462 (E.D. Va., June 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on October 17, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. McLean Mortgage Corporation is a financial institution, with its principal place of business in Fairfax, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com MCLEAN MORTGAGE: Parks Files Suit in E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McLean Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Micah Parks, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. McLean Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-00475-RCY (E.D. Va., June 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. McLean Mortgage Corporation provides real estate mortgage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Carroll, Esq. COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP 3311 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804) 999-9999 Email: scarroll@hurtinva.com MEDICARE HEALTH: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Hoy Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ TOBY HOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICARE HEALTH ADVISORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00207-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa, June 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending telemarketing calls to the telephone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its goods and services without prior consent. The Defendant continues to send the unwanted telemarketing calls despite the numbers are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Medicare Health Advisors LLC is a health insurance agency based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Mail, Esq. PURYEAR LAW PC 3719 Bridge Ave., Suite 6 Davenport, IA 52807 Telephone: (563) 265-8344 Email: mail@puryearlaw.com METROMONT LLC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to W.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Elvin Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. METROMONT, LLC, Case No. 2025CP2303197 was removed from the Greenville County (South Carolina) Court of Common Pleas, Thirteenth Judicial District, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-06131-JDA. On May 20, 2025, the Plaintiff commenced this putative class action lawsuit (the "Action") by filing a complaint (the "Complaint") in State Court. The Action "arises out of data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the 'Data Breach'), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ('PII' or the 'Private Information') of Plaintiff and other current and former employees of Defendant, the putative class members."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: George B. Smythe, Esq. WOOD SMITH HENNING &BERMAN, LLP 4000 S. Faber Drive, Suite 300 Charleston, SC 29405 Phone: (843) 557-9171 Email: gsmythe@wshblaw.com MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Ivy Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Charles Ivy, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MOHAWK ESV, INC., a Delaware corporation; MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation; DAL TILE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV011797 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00797. The Complaint includes state law claims for: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Payroll Records; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Unlawful Business Practices; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ian A. Wright, Esq. Kaitlin H. Owen, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-576-1000 Facsimile: 213-576-1100 Email: ian.wright@alston.com kaitlin.owen@alston.com MONTEREY MECHANICAL: Higgs Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jovanda Higgs, individually, and on behalf of the State of California and other aggrieved persons v. MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV113066 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05267. The Complaint alleges a single cause of action, seeking civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") for Defendant's alleged violations of California Labor Code based on the following allegations: failure to pay for all hours worked, including minimum, straight time, and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to pay all wages owed twice per month; failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods; failure to pay all wages at termination; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and failure to indemnify for necessary expenditures.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lara P. Besser, Esq. Annalyse E. Butler, Esq. Marco A. Garcia, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 Email: Lara.Besser@jacksonlewis.com Annalyse.Butler@jacksonlewis.com Marco.Garcia@jacksonlewis.com MOTT OPTICAL: Appeals Denied ADA Suit Dismissal Bid to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ MOTT OPTICAL GROUP, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Roberto Solis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mott Optical Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-311, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.mottoptical.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Mar. 29, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which Judge Brian M. Cogan denied on Apr. 28, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Mott Optical Group, LLC v. Solis, Case No. 25-1492, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 13, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent ROBERTO SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Defendant-Petitioner MOTT OPTICAL GROUP, LLC is represented by: Morton S. Minsley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MORTON S. MINSLEY 101 Lafayette Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 MOUNT ROGERS COMMUNITY: T.H. Files Suit in W.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mount Rogers Community Services. The case is styled as T.H., by her guardian Crystle Heath, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mount Rogers Community Services, Case No. 1:25-cv-00035-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va., June 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Mount Rogers Community Services -- https://www.mountrogers.org/ -- is a full continuum behavioral health provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Carroll, Esq. COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP 3311 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804) 999-9999 Email: scarroll@hurtinva.com MRSS INC: Bemis Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRSS Inc. The case is styled as Ronald Bemis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MRSS Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03485-JPB (N.D. Ga., June 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Mrss Inc. is a leading import company in USA.[BN] MRSS INC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Addictive Dietary Supplements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that the maker of ZaZa-brand dietary supplements does not adequately disclose that tianeptine, a highly addictive opioid agonist and an active ingredient in the products, can cause consumers to develop deeply damaging addictions and undergo painful withdrawal symptoms. The 35-page lawsuit claims that manufacturer MRSS Inc. "created an unreasonable health hazard" by marketing the ZaZa products -- specifically, ZaZa White, ZaZa Silver and ZaZaRed -- as herbal supplements that provide "a wide array of mental and social benefits" without warning consumers of tianeptine's addiction risk and severe withdrawal symptoms. Often referred to as "gas station heroin" for its common sale at gas stations, bodegas, corner stores and mini-marts, tianeptine is an opioid agonist whose function and method of activation in the body fall in the same category as heroin, oxycodone, methadone, morphine, hydrocodone and opium, the suit says. Per the case, tianeptine additionally shares characteristics with FDA Schedule II Controlled Substances such as methamphetamines, fentanyl, cocaine, morphine and phencyclidine -- and its short half-life in the body allegedly leads to quicker withdrawals and an increased chance of addiction. According to the lawsuit, both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have issued notices and warnings about increased reports of the negative effects of tianeptine. Though the compound is sometimes used as a prescription antidepressant in parts of Europe, Asia and Latin America, the FDA has stated that it is not approved for any medical use in the U.S., the suit relays. Several states have also tightly restricted or outright banned the sale of tianeptine, including the state in which the plaintiff first encountered the ZaZa products, the case says. Despite this, the lawsuit claims that ZaZa supplements are sold and marketed with no disclosure that they can result in an opioid-like dependency and severe withdrawal symptoms, which can include delirium, autonomic dysfunction, hyperactivity, agitation, insomnia, headache, restlessness, nausea, vomiting, tachycardia, hypertension, diarrhea, tremors, excessive sweating, drowsiness and confusion. "[T]here are no warnings or disclosures on the packaging -- or even an asterisk suggesting that purchasers should review the back of the product or information located elsewhere for more information," the suit writes. Additionally, MRSS Inc. has given out free samples of ZaZa, which implies to consumers that the products are safe, the case says. The lawsuit alleges that MRSS Inc. is and was fully aware of the addictive properties, pharmacological effects and regulatory statutes and warnings surrounding tianeptine, and that the potential withdrawal symptoms would cause users to purchase even more ZaZa products in order to stave off the painful side effects. Per the case, MRSS purposely designed the ZaZa products to be addictive -- and failed to disclose their risks -- in order to "prey on users" and increase profits even as the U.S. is experiencing an opiate crisis. A reasonable consumer, the complaint argues, does not expect that products like ZaZa, which are sold at local stores and gas stations, will contain highly addictive chemicals that pose the same or greater addiction risk than opioids. As such, the case says, many ZaZa users have been blindsided by the adverse effects of the purportedly harmless supplement, including severe tianeptine addiction, which can cause severe financial, psychological and physical harm. The complaint cites several firsthand accounts from ZaZa users that were posted on the "Quitting Tianeptine" Reddit forum, all of which detail the various severely negative effects this unexpected addiction has wreaked on their lives, including needing to take enormous doses every few hours, even while sleeping; enduring painful and disruptive withdrawal symptoms upon trying to quit or lower their dosage; degrading and destroying relationships with family and friends due to the addiction; and burning through bank accounts, savings, assets and credit cards to fund the expensive habit. The ZaZa class action lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the U.S. who has purchased a ZaZa product, and the plaintiff also seeks an injunction removing the products from the market. [GN] N.C.W.C. INC: Mitchell Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against N.C.W.C., Inc. The case is styled as Adren Mitchell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. N.C.W.C., Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00701 (M.D. Fla., June 24, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. NCWC -- https://ncwcinc.com/ -- is an administrator of automotive extended service plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com NATIONAL MORTGAGE: Dismissal of Kovachevich's HPA Claim Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the dismissal of the Plaintiff-Appellant's Homeowners Protection Act claim in the lawsuit captioned STEVE KOVACHEVICH, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff - Appellant v. NATIONAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee, and LOANCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 23-2071 (4th Cir.). The Appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk; Jamar Kentrell Walker, District Judge; Case No. 2:22-cv-00468-JKW-DEM. Before Roger Gregory and Pamela Harris, Circuit Judges, and Barbara Milano Keenan, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by published opinion. Judge Harris wrote the opinion, in which Judge Gregory and Judge Keenan joined. When would-be homebuyers take out mortgage loans, their lenders sometimes require them to purchase private mortgage insurance ("PMI"). The federal Homeowners Protection Act ("HPA" or "Act") provides for the cancellation of those requirements when the insurance is no longer necessary to protect lenders. The Act also entitles homebuyers, under certain circumstances, to a refund of unearned premiums they may have paid for their insurance (12 U.S.C. Section 4902(f)). The scope of that refund entitlement is the issue on appeal. Homebuyer Steve Kovachevich was voluntarily released by his mortgage servicer from his obligation to carry private mortgage insurance. When he was unable to obtain a refund of premiums he had prepaid, he brought this action in federal court. The district court dismissed Kovachevich's claim under the Homeowners Protection Act, holding that he was not entitled to a refund under Section 4902(f). The Panel agrees, and affirms the dismissal of Kovachevich's federal claim. The Panel vacates the dismissal of Kovachevich's accompanying state-law claims and remands so that the district court may consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. Judge Harris notes that this Circuit appears to be the first to address the meaning of Section 4902(f) of the HPA. But the Panel thinks it is clear that the district court correctly read and applied that provision. The HPA entitles a borrower to the return of unearned premiums if his private mortgage insurance is cancelled or terminated at one of Section 4902's three statutory endpoints. But as the district court held, Judge Harris explains, there is no entitlement to the return of unearned premiums when PMI is cancelled by voluntary agreement and before a homebuyer satisfies one of the statutory criterion. Like the district court, the Panel is unpersuaded by Kovachevich's arguments for his alternative interpretation of Section 4902(f)(2) -- an interpretation, the Panel notes, that no court appears to have embraced. In sum, the Panel agrees with the district court that the relevant text and statutory structure make clear that a homebuyer is entitled to a refund of unearned premiums under the Act only if his PMI has been cancelled or terminated pursuant to one of Section 4902's statutory benchmarks. Accordingly, the Panel affirms the district court's dismissal of Kovachevich's claim under the HPA. The district court dismissed without prejudice Kovachevich's two claims under state law for want of jurisdiction. Having dismissed Kovachevich's only federal claim, Judge Harris says the district court seemed to conclude, it necessarily lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the state-law claims. That is not quite right, Judge Harris holds. When a district court has jurisdiction over a federal claim under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims. Because it seems the district court did not make such a decision here, the Panel vacates the dismissal of Kovachevich's state-law claims for unjust enrichment and conversion, and remands for the court to consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Panel affirms the district court's dismissal of Kovachevich's Homeowners Protection Act claim. The district court's dismissal of Kovachevich's state-law unjust enrichment and conversion claims is vacated, and those claims are remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/4mpuewsk from PacerMonitor.com. Matthew G. Rosendahl -- matt@kellyguzzo.com -- Kristi C. Kelly -- kkelly@kellyguzzo.com -- KELLY GUZZO PLC, in Fairfax, Virginia, for the Appellant. Joseph Nicholas Froehlich -- joseph.froehlich@troutman.com -- JNF LAW P.C., in Cary, North Carolina; Gregory T. Casamento -- greg.casamento@troutman.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP, in New York City, New York, for the Appellee. NEIL JONES: Court Refuses to Strike Vallejo's Class Allegations --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Noel Wise of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss and strike class allegations in the lawsuit titled JOSEPH VALLEJO, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE NEIL JONES FOOD COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-06835-NW (N.D. Cal.). The lawsuit is a putative class action filed by Plaintiffs Joseph Vallejo, Victor Espericueta and Christopher Jones and brought against Neil Jones Food Company, dba San Benito Foods' ("NJFC" or "Defendant") for releasing noxious odors onto the Plaintiffs' properties and the surrounding area. Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint and to strike class allegations. The Court denies the motion with prejudice and orders the Defendant to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for plagiarism. The Defendant owns and operates a tomato cannery ("Facility") located in Hollister, California. The Facility is surrounded by residential properties, including properties owned by the named Plaintiffs and members of the putative class. The Plaintiffs allege that, on frequent, recurrent, and continuing occasions too numerous to list, the Plaintiffs' property and the surrounding public land has been and continues to be physically invaded by noxious odors originating from the Defendant's Facility. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant is required to control its odorous emissions, but has failed to follow proper practices to prevent noxious off-site odor emissions and has failed to sufficiently collect, capture, and/or treat odors generated at its Facility. In the last three years, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District issued three notices of violation to the Defendant for noxious odors. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's noxious odors have caused negative impacts to themselves and others neighboring the Facility, depriving them of the enjoyment and use of their property. Though the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant could abate the release of the noxious emissions with reasonable care and diligence, the Defendant knowingly continues to release noxious odors into the area surrounding the Facility. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on Sept. 27, 2024, and served the Defendant on October 17. The Defendant sought and received extensions to file its responsive pleading. In the parties' March 17, 2025 joint case management statement ("JCMS"), the Defendant indicated it planned to file a motion to dismiss. According to Judge Wise, the Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on April 7, 2025, at 4:32 p.m., the day after it was due. Not 15 minutes later, on April 7, 2025, at 4:43 p.m., the Defendant filed an answer to the complaint it had just moved to dismiss. Then, at 4:50 p.m., the Defendant filed a crossclaim against third-party Sunnyslope County Water District. Because the crossclaim filing accidentally omitted certain exhibits, the Defendant filed an amended version of the crossclaim at 4:57 p.m. In summary, between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on April 7, 2025, the Defendant filed four distinct documents responding to the Plaintiff's complaint. The Court recognizes that April 6, 2025, was a Sunday. Nevertheless, Judge Wise says, it was the date the parties proposed and that the Court ordered. Despite two separate extensions, the Defendant failed to file its responsive pleadings within that time frame. The Court finds the sequence of procedural events baffling. At first blush, the Court assumed the Defendant's motion was filed in error, because it was filed late, without leave of Court, and it seemed unlikely that the Defendant would concurrently file a motion and an answer. When the time came, however, the Defendant timely filed a reply to the Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the Defendant made no reference to its answer. The Court can then only assume that the Defendant's perplexing choice to simultaneously file an answer, crossclaim, and an untimely motion to dismiss was intentional, even if inexplicable. If the Court accepts the Defendant's untimely motion to dismiss (which the Court does not do, in part because the Defendant has not sought that relief), the Defendant is arguably not in violation of this rule because (according to the docket entries) the Defendant's motion to dismiss precedes its answer by 11 minutes. However, given the minimal time between filings, and the fact that electronic filings do not appear instantaneously on the docket, the Court views the filings as coinciding. Consequently, the Court is within its discretion to deny the Defendant's motion as untimely under Rule 12(b), and because it was filed a day late without leave of Court. The Court does not rely solely on the Defendant's untimeliness to deny the Defendant's motion; there are other, independent reasons for the Court's ruling. For example, the Court has discretion to deny the motion as a sanction for Rule 11 violations. As noted in the Plaintiffs' opposition brief, Judge Wise notes that whole sections of the Defendant's motion were lifted verbatim, without citation or attribution, from a motion in a different case, on behalf of a different defendant, represented by a different firm, and different attorneys, citing Gutierrez v. C&H Sugar, Inc., No. 23-CV-03192-SI, 2023 WL 7927771 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2023). The Court, having conducted its own comparison of the two briefs, has found Defendant NJFC's brief to include at least a dozen paragraphs that are substantively identical and near word-for-word duplicates of the original C&H Sugar brief. Judge Wise points out that the most glaring sign of the Defendant's sweeping copy and paste from the Gutierrez v. C&H Sugar, Inc. brief is on the first page of the Defendant's motion; instead of referencing the Plaintiffs in the instant case, the Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the complaint of "Plaintiff Freddy Gutierrez," the plaintiff in Gutierrez v. C&H Sugar, Inc., who brought suit two years before this case was filed. Remarkably, though the Plaintiffs revealed the Defendant's conduct via a footnote on the first page in their opposition, the Defendant's reply neither disputes nor even acknowledges the accusation. Perhaps the Plaintiff's reference to the Defendant's plagiarism of another firm's intellectual property went unnoticed by the Defendant, but it did not go unnoticed by the Court. Finally, while plagiarism is patently unacceptable, it is mystifying why a party would double-down on imprudence by reproducing a losing brief, Judge Wise says. Here, the Defendant copied from a motion to dismiss that was denied after being opposed two years ago by Gutierrez's counsel--the very same attorneys and firm, who represent the Plaintiffs in the instant action. Judge Illston from this district, fully analyzed C&H Sugar's motion to dismiss, and denied the motion in full. Just like in Gutierrez, the Defendant's motion alleged that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim and requested the Court strike the Plaintiffs' class action allegations. Just like in Gutierrez, the Defendant challenged whether the Plaintiffs sustained an actual injury and whether pure economic loss can give rise to negligence claims in California; whether allegations of a noxious odor can sustain private and public nuisance claims; and whether the Plaintiff can request prospective damages on nuisances that can be abated. In Gutierrez v. C&H Sugar, Inc., the court found for plaintiffs at every juncture with case law and analysis that apply with equal force here. The Court adopts that opinion in full and, for that reason, also denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court denies with prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss and strike class allegations. Judge Wise notes that plagiarism, including in briefs filed with the Court, is unacceptable. Judge Wise opines that the failure to credit another for their work product is an issue the Court takes seriously. The Court orders the Defendant to respond to this Order to Show Cause, in writing, by July 14, 2025, including setting forth the sanction defense counsel contends is appropriate. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set for July 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Defense counsel of record must appear for the hearing in person. Because the Defendant has already filed an answer, the Court sets a Case Management Conference (CMC) also for July 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. The parties must file an updated joint case management statement by no later than July 14, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3vshmvvd from PacerMonitor.com. NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.9MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Netgain Technology agreed to pay $1.9 million as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed to protect consumer information during a data breach. The Netgain settlement benefits individuals whose personal or health-related information may have been shared with a third party as a result of a data breach between September 2020 and November 2020. According to a class action lawsuit, Netgain failed to protect personal and health-related information of consumers in a data breach discovered in March 2021. Netgain is a service provider that manages IT and cloud computing services for healthcare and accounting companies. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit say they are at an increased risk of identity theft and fraud due to the breach and had to spend time and money to monitor their accounts and protect themselves from fraud. Netgain has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.9 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Netgain settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 for documented ordinary losses and time spent related to the data breach. This includes unreimbursed fraud or identity theft losses, credit monitoring costs, bank fees, communication charges, travel expenses and up to three hours of time at a rate of $25 per hour. Class members who do not have documented expenses, or who do not wish to claim expense reimbursement, can choose an alternative pro rata cash payment instead. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 2, 2025. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 30, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 17, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals whose personal or health-related information may have been shared with a third party as a result of a data breach between September 2020 and November 2020. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in documented losses, or a pro rata cash payout. Proof of Purchase Receipts, invoices, tax forms, financial documents, account statements, legal letters, credit reports and other documentation of data breach-related losses. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 09/17/2025 Case Name In re: Netgain Technology LLC Consumer Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-1210 (SRN/LIB), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota Final Hearing 10/30/2025 Settlement Website NetgainClassActionSettlement.com Claims Administrator In re Netgain Technology, LLC Consumer Data Breach Litigation c/o CPT Group, Inc. 50 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 NetgainClassActionSettlement@cptgroup.com (888) 678-2591 Class Counsel Brian C. Gudmundson Michael J. Laird Rachel K. Tack ZIMMERMAN REED LLP Bryan L. Bleichner Christopher P. Renz CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA Gayle M. Blatt CASEY GERRY FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP Defense Counsel Paul R. Smith R. Henry Pfutzenreuter LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN LTD [GN] NEW YORK: Koppel Sues Over Students and Employees' Compromised Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- DERON KOPPEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05137-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated students and employees stored within its network systems following a data breach between October 20, 2024, and March 21, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. New York University is a not-for-profit, private educational institution, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com NISSAN NORTH: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. filed on June 13, 2025, a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 24-1289, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case captioned Nissan North America, Inc., Petitioner vs. Sherida Johnson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 22-16644. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs' claims are based upon Nissan's refusal to acknowledge and address a dangerous safety defect in its tempered glass panoramic sunroofs which exists in all class vehicles at the point of sale. Panoramic sunroofs ("PSR") manufactured for Nissan use tempered glass panels that are unable to withstand the stresses and environmental factors present under ordinary driving conditions (the "Sunroof Defect"). The Sunroof Defect causes the Class Vehicles' PSRs to suffer from a propensity to shatter -- suddenly, violently, and without warning -- creating a loud noise and raining glass fragments down on the vehicle's occupants, which in turn creates a serious safety hazard. Having experienced a manifestation of the Sunroof Defect firsthand, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others who purchased or leased a Nissan vehicle with a Nissan factory-installed PSR manufactured by either that incorporate tempered glass panels. The Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. is represented by: Christopher Robert Wray, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Email: cwray@shb.com NORTHWEST PALLET: Obtains Defense-Favorable Verdict in Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dykema, a national law firm, announced that its Labor and Employment Litigation team secured a significant trial victory on behalf of client Northwest Pallet Services, LLC, in a high-exposure employment class action tried in San Bernardino County Superior Court. The jury returned an extremely favorable verdict for the defense, awarding only a minimal fraction of the damages initially sought and rejecting the plaintiffs' bid for substantial penalties and interest that could have dramatically increased the exposure. The case centered on alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws relating to meal break practices affecting a class of up to 1,900 former employees. After years of litigation, the case proceeded to a two-month jury trial on a single certified meal break claim. The Dykema team successfully persuaded the jury to reject nearly all of the plaintiffs' claims, resulting in a defense-favorable verdict. "This was a high-stakes, complex matter involving evolving California legal standards that are generally very difficult for employers to overcome at trial," said Abad Lopez, who led the employment litigation defense team along with Harry Arger, who first chaired the trial. "We were proud to take this case all the way through trial, and even happier to deliver this result for Northwest Pallet." The trial presented a unique legal challenge under California's so-called "rebuttable presumption" standard, stemming from a 2021 California Supreme Court ruling that places a heavy evidentiary burden on employers in meal break litigation. This particular matter may be one of the first trials in California to directly test that standard—and one of the few to result in a defense win for employers. In addition to Lopez and Arger, the Dykema team included Charlotte Carne, James Golden, and Christine Mardikian. [GN] OPENAI INC: Court Issues Discovery Order in Copyright Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Following a discovery status conference on June 25, 2025, for all actions in the consolidated case IN RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION, Case No. 25-md-3143 (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang Wang of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order as follows: I. CLASS ACTION CASES 1. On June 24, 2025, the Court directed the Class Plaintiffs and OpenAI to submit additional briefing on the issue of the Class Plaintiffs' claims of privilege and work-product protection over 36 documents that were disclosed to opposing counsel. 2. Class Plaintiffs' motion at ECF 153/154 regarding production of documents that reference "LibGen" or "Library Genesis" is denied as premature. 3. Class Plaintiffs' motion at 23-CV-8292 ECF 377 is denied as premature. 4. The parties are directed to complete Class Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) deposition of OpenAI regarding the deletion of the Books 1 and Books 2 datasets by July 25, 2025. II. NEWS CASES 1. News Plaintiffs' motion at 23-CV-11195 ECF 489 is granted in part, denied in part. OpenAI is directed to produce final slide decks and any attachments thereto for the specific investor presentations made by OpenAI to the following investors, as outlined in ECF 489: Microsoft, MGX, Thrive Capital, Softbank, and Tiger Global. 2. Microsoft's motion at ECF 135/139 regarding evidence of the New York Times's reputation is granted in part, denied in part. 3. News Plaintiffs' motion at ECF 157 regarding Defendants' dashboards is denied as premature as to Microsoft. 4. News Plaintiffs' motion at ECF 144 regarding ChatGPT's product recommendation feature is denied as premature. The parties are directed to meet and confer on this issue and update the Court in their next joint dispute chart for the Aug. 12, 2025, conference. The parties are encouraged to focus on document production on the development and refinement of ChatGPT, rather than on the definitions of "product" versus "feature." 5. OpenAI's motion at ECF 129/130 regarding New York Times's non-GenAI licenses is denied as premature. The parties are directed to continue meeting and conferring on the process for providing non-GenAI licenses as directed at the conference. 6. The parties' disputes regarding OpenAI's preservation of output log data and the May 13 Preservation Order are denied as moot. 7. News Plaintiffs' motion at ECF 152/155 regarding OpenAI's production of certain datasets is denied as premature. The parties are directed to continue meeting and conferring on this issue, including allowing OpenAI time to investigate the datasets, and the technological feasibility and proportionality of production. 8. OpenAI's motion at 23-CV-11195 ECF 494/495 regarding expanding the date range for production of certain of New York Times custodians to 2018 is denied. Moreover, any future motion to expand date ranges for particular custodians to predate 2022 must make a particularized showing based on evidence already produced and reviewed as to why production is appropriate for the specific custodians and why production should be extended back to that particular date. 9. News Plaintiffs' motion at ECF 148 regarding interrogatories 11 and 12 is denied as premature. 10. Based on the parties' representation that they reached an agreement to continue to meet and confer, the following motions are denied as moot: ECF Nos. 114/115, 120/122, 125, 145, and 23-CV-11195 ECF 322. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4gr6Gq from PacerMonitor.com. PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Settlement in Felipe Suit Gets Prelim. Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard F. Boulware, II of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement in the case captioned as CHRISTIAN A. FELIPE, Plaintiff, v. PLAYSTUDIOS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01159-RFB-NJK (D. Nev.). Lead Plaintiffs The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. and The Phoenix Provident Pension Fund Ltd., on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, and Defendants PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. ("Playstudios" or the "Company," f/k/a Acies Acquisition Corp., or "Acies"), Andrew Pascal, Edward King, Daniel Fetters, James Murren, Zach Leonsis, Brisa Carleton, Andrew Zobler, Sam Kennedy, Christopher Grove, William J. Hornbuckle, Joe Horowitz, Jason Krikorian, and Judy K. Mencher, entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on March 5, 2025, which is subject to review under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and which, together with the exhibits annexed thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed settlement and dismissal of the class action pending before the Court entitled, Felipe v. Playstudios, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01159-RFB-NJK (D. Nev.). Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of all persons and entities who: (a) purchased or otherwise acquired public shares in Playstudios (including by way of exchange of publicly-listed Acies shares) pursuant to or traceable to the Proxy/Registration Statement; (b) were solicited to approve the merger between Playstudios and Acies and who exchanged publicly-listed Acies shares for Playstudios Class A Ordinary Shares rather than redeeming the same pursuant to the Proxy/Registration Statement; or (c) purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios common stock between August 11, 2021, and May 5, 2022, both dates inclusive; and as to any of (a)-(c) were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) persons who suffered no compensable losses; and (b)(i) Defendants and their immediate families; (ii) current and former directors or officers of Playstudios or Acies; (iii) any entity that has entered into a stockholder agreement or co-venture agreement with Playstudios, or was a Private Investment in Public Equities ("PIPE") investor in Playstudios; and (iv) any entity controlled, majority-owned or wholly owned, or affiliated with any of the above. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. The Court finds, preliminarily and for purposes of this Settlement only, that the prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied in that: (a) the number of Settlement Class Members is so numerous that joinder of all members of the Settlement Class is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class; (c) the claims of Lead Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class they seek to represent; (d) Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class; (e) questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual Settlement Class Members; and (f) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the Action. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, preliminarily and for the purposes of this Settlement only, Lead Plaintiffs are certified as the class representatives on behalf of the Settlement Class and Lead Counsel, previously selected by Lead Plaintiffs and appointed by the Court, are appointed as Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court finds that (a) the Stipulation resulted from good faith, arm's length negotiations, and (b) the Stipulation is sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class Members to warrant providing notice of the Settlement to Settlement Class Members and holding a Settlement Hearing. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, subject to further consideration at a hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which is scheduled to be held before the Court on October 14, 2025 at 12:15 p.m., for the following purposes: (a) to determine finally whether the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b) are satisfied; (b) to determine finally whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved by the Court; (c) to determine finally whether the Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered, dismissing the Action on the merits and with prejudice, and to determine whether the release by the Releasing Parties of the Released Claims against the Released Parties, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be approved, along with a permanent injunction barring efforts to prosecute or attempt to prosecute any Released Claims extinguished by the release against any of the Released Parties, as also set forth in the Stipulation; d) to determine finally whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court; (e) to consider the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees with interest and expenses and an award to the Class Representatives; (f) to consider Settlement Class Members' objections to the Settlement, if any, whether submitted previously in writing or presented orally at the Settlement Hearing by Settlement Class Members (or by counsel on their behalf) provided that they gave proper notice that they intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing; and (g) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5wBmcF from PacerMonitor.com. QUALITY CARRIER: Class Action Waivers Enforceable, Court Rules -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of an order entered on May 8, 2025 that granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss and strike filed by Quality Carriers, Inc. in the case captioned as WINSTON SMITH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-2815-VMC-AAS (M.D. Fla.). This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs Winston Smith, Duane Nelson, Jerome Jones, and Fred Dean's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on May 28, 2025. In granting the motion in part, the Court struck Plaintiffs' class action allegations, which applied to Counts One and Two, because the class action waivers within Plaintiffs' contracts should be enforced. Plaintiffs move specifically for reconsideration of this ruling. Plaintiffs argue that the Court erred in citing Singh v. Uber Technologies Inc., 235 F. Supp. 3d 656, 673 n. 11 (D.N.J. 2017), and in turn, erred in finding that the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law does not provide an unwaivable right to pursue a class action. They claim that Singh is no longer good law because the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, which was amended in 2019 and is distinct from the NJWHL, specifies that the employee shall be entitled to maintain the action for and on behalf of other similarly situated employees. According to the Court, even assuming that the NJWPL's provisions apply to the NJWHL, the NJWHL had contained a similar provision for decades prior to the Singh opinion. Even still, the Singh-court found that the NJWHL does not provide an unwaivable right to proceed as a class. Thus, the Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiffs' argument. Plaintiffs also argue that the Court erred in concluding that the waivers were not void under Florida law. However, they cite a line of cases which focus on class certification, rather than the enforceability of class waivers. Thus, the Court finds that these cases do not detract from its conclusion that Plaintiffs' class waivers are enforceable. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=njsAM5 from PacerMonitor.com. REDDIT INC: Mislead Investors with False Reports, Tamraz Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY JOSEPH TAMRAZ, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REDDIT, INC., STEVEN HUFFMAN, ANDREW VOLLERO, and JENNIFER WONG, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-05144-JD (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Reddit securities between October 29, 2024, and May 20, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) changes in Google Search's algorithm and features like AI Overview were causing users to stop their query on Google Search; (ii) these algorithm changes were materially different than prior instances of reduced traffic to the Reddit website; (iii) Defendants were aware that the increase in the query term "Reddit" on search engines was because users were getting the sought after answer from Google Search without having to go to Reddit, and not because they intended to visit Reddit; (iv) this zero-click search reality was dramatically reducing traffic to Reddit in a manner the Company was unable to overcome in the short term; (v) Defendants, therefore, lacked a reasonable basis for their outlook on user rates and advertising revenues; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 21, 2025, Baird analysts substantially downgraded Reddit's stock, reducing the price target to $120 per share from the previous $140 per share. Citing similar concerns as the Wells Fargo analysts, Baird analysts also noted the new developments in Google Search that had just been presented at the Google I/O developer conference. With this confirmation on permanent disruptions to Reddit's traffic, Baird analysts accordingly "adjusted estimates for ongoing U.S. user growth headwinds." Investors reacted immediately to the Baird revelations. The price of Reddit's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $105.64 per share on May 20, 2025, Reddit's stock price fell to $95.85 per share on May 21, 2025, a decline of about 9.3%, the suit relates. Reddit, Inc. is a social media platform and forum-style website where users share and discuss content through posts and comments, organized into communities called subreddits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SAN JUANA: Parking Lot Not ADA Compliant, Suarez Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL SUAREZ, Plaintiff v. SAN JUANA QUINTANILLA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00131 (S.D. Tex., June 18, 2025) is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and its attendant regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. According to the complaint, the Defendant refused to provide Plaintiff and others similarly situated persons with physical disability and mobility impairments with sufficient ADA-compliant parking in the parking lot owned by the Defendant. The Plaintiff claims that at the Los Fresnos location, there are no ADA-compliant van-accessible spaces on the shortest access route to the business and no ADA-required handicapped parking signs. San Juana Quintanilla owns, manages, controls, and leases the improvements and building where the EL REY DEL TACO business is situated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Tharpe, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF R. BRUCE THARPE, PLLC PO Box 101 Olmito, TX 78575 Telephone: (956) 255-5111 E-mail: rbtharpe@aol.com SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. ("Sarepta" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SRPT) securities between June 22, 2023 and June 24, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ELEVIDYS posed significant safety risks to patients; (ii) ELEVIDYS trial regimes and protocols failed to detect severe side effects; and (iii) the severity of adverse events from ELEVIDYS treatment would cause Sarepta to halt recruitment and dosing in ELEVIDYS trials, attract regulatory scrutiny, and create greater risk around the therapy’s present and expanded approvals. On March 18, 2025, the Company revealed that a patient treated with ELEVIDYS suffered acute liver failure leading to death, which represented "a severity of acute liver injury not previously reported for ELEVIDYS." On this news, the price of Sarepta stock fell more than 27%. On April 4, 2025, the Company disclosed that European Union member country authorities had requested that the independent data monitoring committee meet to review the death announced on March 18, 2025, resulting in Sarepta halting recruitment and dosing in some of the ELEVIDYS clinical studies. On this news, the price of Sarepta stock fell more than 7%. On June 15, 2025, the Company disclosed that a second patient had died of acute liver failure following treatment with ELEVIDYS, leading to Sarepta suspending shipment of ELEVIDYS for non-ambulatory patients and pausing dosing of ELEVIDYS in the ENVISION clinical study to evaluate the protocol in accordance with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). On this news, the price of Sarepta stock fell more than 42%. Finally, on June 24, 2025, the FDA issued a Safety Communication announcing it had received reports of two deaths and was investigating the risk of acute liver failure with serious outcomes following treatment with ELEVIDYS. On this news, the price of Sarepta stock fell more than 8%. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Sarepta should contact the Firm prior to the August 25, 2025 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] SCHNADER HARRISON: Bennett Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JO BENNETT, v. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00592-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying Counts I through VII on behalf of a Class defined as follows: a. In the event that the Plaintiff and the Defendants execute a final settlement agreement, the Plaintiff request that the Court certify Counts I-VII on behalf of the following Class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and/or 23(b)(1) and/or (b)(2): "Participants in the Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis Retirement & Savings Plan who were attorneys with the title of Income Partner or Counsel at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP between Feb. 7, 2018 and June 30, 2023 and who were assessed a "Non-Elective Retirement Contribution" as described in annual memoranda entitled "[Year] Retirement Contribution" (and for whom such assessment was not fully repaid or refunded) and the beneficiaries of such participants." Excluded from the Class are the following persons: (a) the Defendants; (b) any equity partners of Schnader during the Class Period; (c) any fiduciary of the plan with Discretionary fiduciary authority with respect to the Non- Elective Retirement Contribution during the Class Period; (d) the beneficiaries of any of such persons or the immediate family members of any such foregoing excluded persons; and (e) the legal representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded persons. or b. In the event that the Plaintiff and the Defendants do not execute a final settlement agreement the Plaintiff requests that the Court certify Counts I-VII on behalf of the following Class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and/or (b)(2) or alternatively Rule 23(b)(3): "Participants in the Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Retirement & Savings Plan who were attorneys with the title of Income Partner or Counsel at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP between Jan. 1, 2022 and June 30, 2023 and who were assessed a "Non-Elective Retirement Contribution" as described in annual memoranda entitled "[Year] Retirement Contribution" (and for whom such assessment was not fully repaid or refunded) and the beneficiaries of such participants." Excluded from the Class are the following persons: (a) the Defendants; (b) any equity partners of Schnader during the Class Period; (c) any fiduciary of the plan with discretionary authority with respect to the Non-Elective Retirement Contribution during the Class Period; (d) the beneficiaries of any of such persons or the immediate family members of any such foregoing excluded persons; and (e) the legal representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded persons. 2. Appointing Jo Bennett as Representative for the Class; 3. Appointing R. Joseph Barton of The Barton Firm and Adam H. Garner of The Garner Firm, Ltd. as Class Counsel. Schnader is a full service law firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CYgme5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. THE BARTON FIRM LLP 1633 Connecticut Ave, Suite 200 Washington DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 E-mail: jbarton@thebartonfirm.com - and - Adam Harrison Garner, Esq. Melanie J. Garner, Esq. THE GARNER FIRM, LTD. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 645-5955 Facsimile: (215) 645-5960 E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com melanie@garnerltd.com SENTARA HEALTH: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Guerrero Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENTARA HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00360-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va., June 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on April 3, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Sentara Health is a healthcare company, with a principal place of business located in Norfolk, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 728 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 Email: swebster@websterbook.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com SL GREEN: Wins Bid Arbitrate Claims in Newman Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SL Green Realty Corp. and Summit OVA Tenant LLC's motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned as JOEL NEWMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs,-against- SL GREEN REALTY CORP-., et al., Defendants, Case 1:24-cv-00335-MMG (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs brought this putative class action in diversity under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), against Defendants for failure to disclose the total costs of tickets, including ancillary fees, to SUMMIT One Vanderbilt, prior to the tickets being selected for purchase online, in violation of New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law Sec. 25.07(4). Defendants have moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims on an individual basis. On Jan. 16, 2024, Plaintiff Joel Newman initiated this putative class action in diversity under CAFA. On March 12, 2024, Newman amended the complaint, adding Eric Gutman and William Wong as named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are individual consumers who purchased tickets to SUMMIT One, an immersive multisensory experience and observation deck in the One Vanderbilt building at 45 E. 42nd Street in Manhattan, prior to February 2024. Specifically, Newman purchased one ticket on Jan. 12, 2024; Gutman purchased two tickets on April 23, 2023; and Wong purchased two tickets on Dec. 17, 2023. Defendant SL Green Realty Corp. owns and operates the One Vanderbilt building. Defendant Summit OVA Tenant LLC sells tickets to SUMMIT One through its website, found at https://summitov.com Plaintiffs allege that, prior to February 2024, Defendants did not properly disclose the total cost and fees of tickets to SUMMIT One, specifically by failing to disclose an additional $3.00 processing fee associated with each order prior to purchase, 1n violation of Section 25.07(4). On April 12, 2024, Defendants moved to compel individual arbitrations of Plaintiffs' claims and stay this action pending the resolution of the arbitrations. Defendants argue that: (1) upon purchasing their tickets, Plaintiffs assented to clickwrap terms and conditions, the Summit T&Cs, which included mandatory arbitration provisions and class action waiver provisions; and (2) the binding Summit T&Cs cover Plaintiffs' claims under Section 25.07(4) and require individual arbitration of such claims. Plaintiffs dispute both the existence of a valid arbitration agreements and the arbitrability of their claims. Based on the record evidence, the Court finds Defendants have made a prima facie showing that the Summit T&Cs are valid arbitration agreements. Defendants have shown that Plaintiffs were required to affirmatively agree to the reasonably conspicuous Summit T&Cs, which include binding arbitration provisions. Because the Summit T&Cs are enforceable, under the plain terms of the class action waiver provisions, Plaintiffs may not bring this action on behalf of a putative class, and Plaintiffs must individually arbitrate their clams, the Court concludes. The case is stayed pending resolution of the Plaintiffs' individual arbitrations. A copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yb7jGm from PacerMonitor.com. SOUTHERLAND: Wennerstein Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JAMES E. WENNERSTEIN ADC #163817, PLAINTIFF v. SOUTHERLAND, et al., DEFENDANTS, CASE NO. 2:25-CV-00084-BSM-JTK (E.D. Ark.), Judge Brian S. Miller of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas adopted the partial recommended disposition of United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney and denied James Wennerstein's petition for class action status. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3bNIB0 from PacerMonitor.com. STARBUCKS CORP: Bollinger, et al. Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of the case captioned as MARIA BOLLINGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00303-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.) pursuant to Rule 41(a). On June 12, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While Plaintiffs have brought this case as a putative class action, the Court agrees with the parties that Rule 41(a), not Rule 23(e), applies in the disposition of this matter because no class has been certified. As no class has been certified in this action, the putative class members are not bound by the settlement and dismissal of this action. Therefore, the Court construes the parties' stipulation to dismiss this action to be with prejudice as to Plaintiffs and without prejudice as to the putative class members. In light of the stipulation, this entire action has been terminated, and has been dismissed pursuant to the terms of the stipulation. It is ordered that all pending dates and matters are vacated. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eXWk4g from PacerMonitor.com. STEPHEN M. SCHERR: Court Consolidates Two Related Shareholder Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John L. Badalamenti of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the plaintiff's motion to consolidate the case captioned as ANAND ROY, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN M. SCHERR, et al., Defendants, Case no. 2:24-cv-00744-JLB-KCD (M.D. Fla.) with Yaun v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00891-JLB-NPM for all purposes, including trial. After review of the motion, the Court concludes that these cases involve enough common questions of law and fact to permit consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and Local Rule 1.07(b). After careful consideration, the Court finds that these cases are due to be consolidated for all purposes, including discovery, motion practice, and trial. This lawsuit and Yaun are shareholder derivative actions against Defendant Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Both lawsuits allege Hertz made false and misleading statements relating to vehicle depreciation costs and overstated market demand for electric vehicles, leading to a 19.31% drop in stock price. Both actions bring claims for violating Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Court concludes the cases arise out of a common question of law or fact. Additionally, Plaintiff moves to be appointed co-lead plaintiff alongside Davis Aiken Yaun, the lead plaintiff in Yaun, Case No. 2:24-cv-00891-JLB-NPM. In this case, both Roy and Yaun have agreed to serve as co-lead plaintiffs. The Court finds that Roy and Yaun will fairly and adequately represent shareholder interests. Both are current shareholders of Hertz and were shareholders at all relevant times. Plaintiff also moves to approve Gainey McKenna & Egleston and The Brown Law Firm as co-lead counsel in the consolidated action. Neither party has objected to the approval of the proposed co-lead counsel nor is the Court aware of any reason Gainey McKenna & Egleston and The Brown Law Firm should not be approved. Gainey McKenna & Egleston has extensive experience in complex class action litigation, shareholder derivative litigation, and securities fraud. Similarly, The Brown Law Firm has received favorable outcomes in several similar actions in both federal and state courts. Further, both firms are already familiar with the facts and claims of these two (2) related cases. The Brown Law Firm is counsel for Plaintiff in this case and drafted the Complaint Likewise, Gainey McKenna & Egleston are counsel for Plaintiff in Yaun, Case No. 2:24-cv-00891-JLB-NPM and worked on the Complaint. Thus, both firms have demonstrated that they are well-qualified to advocate for plaintiffs in the consolidated action, the Court fidns. The Court designates this case, Case No. 2:24-cv-00744-JLB-KCD, as the lead case. Anand Roy and Davis Aiken Yaun shall be designated as co-lead plaintiffs. Gainey McKenna & Egleston and The Brown Law Firm shall be designated as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xZBkgO from PacerMonitor.com. SUNOCO PIPELINE: E.D. Pennsylvania Remands La Hart to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mia R. Perez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remands the lawsuit entitled DANIEL LA HART, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02072-MRP (E.D. Pa.), to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The Plaintiffs filed this environmental class action in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, alleging injuries from a petroleum pipeline leak in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Defendants Sunoco Pipeline L.P., Energy Transfer LP and Energy Transfer (R&M) LLC ("R&M") removed the action under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Plaintiffs now move to remand, invoking the local controversy exception to CAFA and disputing the Defendants' claim that R&M, a Pennsylvania entity, was fraudulently joined. The Court concludes that the Defendants have not met their burden to show fraudulent joinder, and that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the criteria for the local controversy exception. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to remand. The case arises from a breach of the Defendants' Twin Oaks Pipeline ("Pipeline") in the Mount Eyre Manor residential community in Upper Makefield Township, in Bucks County Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action on March 27, 2025, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Energy Transfer, through its complex network of subsidiaries, limited partnerships, and joint ventures, including Defendants Sunoco and R&M, owns one of the nation's largest networks of natural gas, crude oil, and petroleum product pipelines. The pipeline leak at issue here has contaminated groundwater, private drinking wells, soil, and air in the community, causing damage to the environment, property values, and health of the residents. The Defendants publicly accepted responsibility for the leak and are remediating the affected area. On Jan. 31, 2025, Sunoco identified and reported the pipeline leak to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ("PADEP"); however, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants had received odor complaints from residents as early as September 2023. On Feb. 1, 2025, Energy Transfer issued a written statement confirming the discovery of the leak. Following confirmation of the leak, the Defendants removed and replaced the leaking segment, returned the pipeline to service, and began conducting testing of the water of nearby residences. On Feb. 13, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a Notice of Proposed Safety Order and proposed remedial requirements to the Defendants. The Defendants submitted a Notice of Intent to Remediate to PADEP on February 13 and, on the same day, formally notified the Township Manager of their remediation efforts. On Feb. 18, 2025, the PADEP issued a Notice of Violation to the Defendants. During a town hall meeting on Feb. 27, an Energy Transfer representative claimed responsibility for the release and apologized. On March 6, 2025, PADEP issued an administrative order to Defendants R&M and Sunoco, requiring a response to the leak and the implementation of certain remedial efforts, including installing point-of-entry treatment systems, preparing daily reports, and providing bottled water. The PADEP Administrative Order required the Defendants to file an appeal within 30 days with the Environmental Hearing Board. The Defendants declined to file an appeal, but on March 31, a representative of Energy Transfer responded to the administrative order via email, asserting that R&M is not a proper party to the order since R&M does not own or operate the pipeline and has no ownership interest in Sunoco. On April 24, 2025, the Defendants timely removed the action to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), asserting minimal diversity, a putative class exceeding 100 members, and an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. The Defendants also assert that R&M was fraudulently joined and should be disregarded for jurisdictional purposes. On May 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Remand, arguing that (1) R&M is a properly joined Pennsylvania defendant, and (2) the case qualifies for the mandatory local controversy exception under CAFA. The Plaintiffs alternatively requested limited jurisdictional discovery if the Court determined that factual development was necessary to resolve jurisdiction. The Defendants filed a consolidated opposition brief to the motion to remand on June 10, 2025, along with a declaration asserting that R&M had no operational role in the Pipeline or its breach, and that its inclusion in a PADEP administrative order was erroneous. The Defendants, who removed this action pursuant to CAFA, argue that Defendant R&M, a Pennsylvania entity, was fraudulently joined by the Plaintiffs in their initial state action in an effort to purposely destroy federal diversity jurisdiction. Judge Perez notes that there is no dispute here over the actual citizenship of any of the parties for purposes of federal jurisdiction. Rather, the disagreement centers on whether R&M's Pennsylvania citizenship should even be considered at all--which hinges on the issue of fraudulent joinder rather than its underlying state of citizenship. The Defendants' characterization of the PADEP's findings as a clerical mistake is not dispositive at this stage, Judge Perez opines. Even if disputed, Judge Perez points out the order and the absence of appeal create a plausible basis for the claim that R&M was legally responsible or operationally involved in the events surrounding this litigation. Because there is a reasonable basis in fact and law for the Plaintiffs' claims against R&M, the Court finds that R&M was not fraudulently joined. Judge Perez notes that there is no dispute that: the entire putative class is comprised of citizens of Pennsylvania; Defendant R&M is a citizen of Pennsylvania; the Plaintiffs are seeking significant relief from R&M; the injuries caused by the pipeline leak occurred in Pennsylvania; and no other class actions asserting the same have been filed in the past three years. The question for the Court is whether the Plaintiffs have shown that R&M forms a "significant basis" for their claims. The Court finds that, in the absence of any formal appeal by the Defendants, the PADEP Administrative Order, which explicitly names R&M and directs it to undertake remedial action for the leak, satisfies the significant basis provision. The PADEP's directive to R&M to take active steps to correct the leak, not merely informational or reporting duties, suggests that PADEP viewed it as operationally or corporately responsible and not some nominal party. Judge Perez points out that R&M was given notice of its right to appeal or challenge the administrative order, and its failure to do so renders it final and binding under Pennsylvania law. The Defendants' arguments do nothing more than raise a factual dispute, not a jurisdictional bar. The Court cannot resolve factual disputes in the Defendants' favor at the remand stage. Judge Perez concludes that this action involves a local environmental incident affecting only Bucks County, Pennsylvania residents, against at least one in-state defendant, who was plausibly alleged to have played a significant role. CAFA's local controversy exception was designed for cases like this. Judge Perez finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden, and the Defendants have not shown fraudulent joinder. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, and this case will be remanded to Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/3mk4s3ay from PacerMonitor.com. SURGALIGN HOLDINGS: Fair Fund Claims Bar Date Set for Oct. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-20945 In the Matter of Surgalign Holdings, Inc. and Robert P. Jordheim, Respondents. TO: Individuals and entities, or their lawful successors, who purchased and/or acquired shares of Surgalign Holdings, Inc. under the symbol RTIX ("RTIX" or "Security") during the period from April 23, 2015 through March 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Relevant Period"). If you fall within the group above, you must submit a completed Claim Form with the documentation substantiating your claim so that it is postmarked (or if not sent by U.S. Mail, received) by October 25, 2025 (the "Claims Bar Date"), to be considered for eligibility to receive a Distribution Payment from the Surgalign Holdings, Inc. Fair Fund ("Fair Fund"). Purpose of this Plan Notice The purpose of this Plan Notice is to inform you that you may be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Fair Fund described herein. To be potentially eligible to share in the Fair Fund, you must file a Claim Form in accordance with the steps set forth in this Plan Notice and in the Plan of Distribution (the "Plan") approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission"). Claim Forms, together with this Plan Notice, are being mailed to all known Preliminary Claimants1 who are identified as Preliminary Claimants by the Commission-appointed Fund Administrator ("Fund Administrator"), Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq").2 Copies of the Plan, this Plan Notice, and the Claim Form are available on the Fair Fund website at www.SurgalignHoldingsFairFund.com and through the Commission's website at www.sec.gov. Certain persons are excluded from eligibility under the Plan. SPECIAL NOTICE TO SECURITIES BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEE PURCHASERS: If you purchased and/or acquired shares of RTIX during the Relevant Period as a nominee for a beneficial owner, then within ten (10) days after you receive this Plan Notice, you must either: (a) send a copy of this Plan Notice and the accompanying Claim Form by First-Class Mail to all such beneficial owners; or (b) provide a list of the names and addresses of such beneficial owners to the Fund Administrator listed in Part VI of this Plan Notice. PLEASE READ THIS PLAN NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU SATISFY THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA DESCRIBED BELOW, YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A DISTRIBUTION PAYMENT FROM THE FAIR FUND. THIS PLAN NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR POSSIBLE ELIGIBILITY TO SHARE IN THE FAIR FUND. Copies of this Plan Notice and the Claim Form may be downloaded at no cost from the Fair Fund's website at www.SurgalignHoldingsFairFund.com. Background On August 3, 2022, the Commission issued the Order instituting and simultaneously settling administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against the Respondents. In the Order, the Commission found that from 2015 through 2019, Surgalign Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. and RTI Surgical, Inc.) ("RTI") shipped orders weeks or months before its customers had originally requested delivery, thereby pulling sales forward from future quarters, to address projected quarterly revenue shortfalls. In some instances, RTI did so after requesting and obtaining customer permission; in other instances, RTI shipped orders early without customer approval and then prematurely recognized revenue for the sales. In multiple quarters, RTI would not have met its revenue guidance without these undisclosed pull-forwards. RTI and its former senior management, including its CFO until September 2017, Robert Jordheim, did not disclose to investors that RTI's apparent success at achieving its revenue guidance resulted from its reliance on pull-forwards, and they did not disclose the known uncertainty that this practice created for RTI's future revenue streams. In 2020, RTI issued a restatement to correct, among other things, its premature recognition of revenue, in violation of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), for orders shipped early to customers without their approval. As a result of the conduct described in the Order, the Commission ordered the Respondents to pay $2,075,000 in civil money penalties. In the Order, the Commission created a Fair Fund pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 so that the civil penalty can be distributed to harmed investors. The Respondents have paid in full. The Fair Fund has been deposited in a Commission-designated account at the United States Department of the Treasury, and any accrued interest will be added to the Fair Fund. Eligibility Criteria and the Distribution Methodology To qualify for a payment from the Fair Fund, you must satisfy certain eligibility criteria that are described in detail in the Plan. The Plan is available on the Fair Fund website at www.SurgalignHoldingsFairFund.com and on the Commission's public website at www.sec.gov. You can also request a copy of the Plan by calling the Fund Administrator at 1-877-629-4892 or by emailing info@SurgalignHoldingsFairFund.com. The eligibility criteria include the following: * You must have purchased and/or acquired shares of Surgalign Holdings, Inc. common stock during the relevant Period (from April 23, 2015 through March 16, 2020, inclusive). * Your approved transactions must calculate to a Recognized Loss as calculated under the Plan of Allocation attached as Exhibit A to the Plan and your Distribution Payment must equal or exceed $20.00. A list of those excluded from participating in the Fair Fund as defined in the Plan, can be found in the Plan on the website, www.SurgalignHoldingsFairFund.com. The Recognized Loss incurred by an Eligible Claimant shall be determined as set forth in the Plan. The methodology used to determine eligibility and calculate Distribution Payments is set forth in the Plan of Allocation attached to the Plan as Exhibit A. Claim Forms A CLAIM FORM CAN BE DOWNLOADED IN THE DOCUMENTS SECTION OF THE WEBSITE, WWW.SURGALIGNHOLDINGSFAIRFUND.COM. THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM AT THE ADDRESS BELOW IS OCTOBER 25, 2025. ALSO REFERENCED HEREIN AS THE "CLAIMS BAR DATE". PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A FIRM DEADLINE. IF YOU FAIL TO SUBMIT A COMPLETED CLAIM FORM ELECTRONICALLY OR POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 25, 2025, YOU MAY BE BARRED FROM RECEIVING A PAYMENT FROM THE FAIR FUND. THE CLAIM FORM AND APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR EACH TRANSACTION LISTED IN PARTS II–III OF THE CLAIM FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CLAIMS BAR DATE. Claim Determinations The Fund Administrator will send a Claim Status Notice within 60 days of the Claims Bar Date to all Preliminary Claimants that submitted a Claim Form. The Claim Status Notice will set forth the Fund Administrator's determination of the eligibility of the claim. If a claim is denied in whole or in part, the Fund Administrator will state the reason for such denial. Preliminary Claimants with deficient or denied claims will be given an opportunity to cure the deficiency or seek reconsideration of the denial. The Fund Administrator will send, as appropriate, a Final Determination Notice to any Preliminary Claimants who responded to the Claim Status Notice in an effort to cure a deficiency or to seek reconsideration of a denied claim, or otherwise dispute the Fund Administrator's determination, notifying the Preliminary Claimant of its determination. Instructions for Submitting a Claim Form YOU MUST COMPLETE AND SIGN THE CLAIM FORM AND SUBMIT IT TO THE FUND ADMINISTRATOR ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE FAIR FUND'S WEBSITE. IF YOU SUBMIT YOUR CLAIM BY MAIL, IT MUST BE RECEIVED OR POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 25, 2025, AT THE ADDRESS LISTED BELOW IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE A DISTRIBUTION PAYMENT FROM THE FAIR FUND: Surgalign Holdings, Inc. Fair Fund Fund Administrator PO Box 6758 Portland, OR 97228-6758 Additional Information Additional information regarding the Fair Fund may be found at www.SurgalignHoldingsFairFund.com. Additional Claim Forms and Plan Notices may also be downloaded at the Fair Fund's website. You may obtain additional information or request copies of Claim Forms and Plan Notices by calling the Fair Fund's toll-free number at 1-877-629-4892, or by emailing info@SurgalignHoldingsFairFund.com. PLEASE CHECK THE WEBSITE WWW.SURGALIGNHOLINGSFAIRFUND.COM FREQUENTLY FOR UPDATES. TASKUS INC: Settlement in Lozada Suit Gets Preliminary Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John P. Cronan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily approved the proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit captioned as HUMBERTO LOZADA and OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, -v- TASKUS, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-01479-JPC-GS (S.D.N.Y.). On Feb. 24, 2025, Plaintiffs Humberto Lozada and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On May 28, 2025, the Honorable Gary Stein, to whom this case has been referred for general supervision of pretrial proceedings and dispositive motions, issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion and enter an order preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice to the putative class. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and finds it to be well founded. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VE8bdE from PacerMonitor.com. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Conspires to Delay Entry of Generic Drugs --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY PENNINGTON and MEGAN DOOLEY FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., TEVA SALES & MARKETING, INC., and CEPHALON LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-01324 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade under state law, and monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law. The case arises from the Defendants' participation in a scheme to improperly block access to the EpiPen, a drug/device combination for severe allergic reactions, in exchange for blocking access to Nuvigil, a wakefulness medicine. According to the complaint, the Defendants worked in secret to sign deals with two other pharmaceutical manufacturers, Mylan and Pfizer, to exchange market access for EpiPen and Nuvigil to protect their respective market shares and to delay entry of generic competition for their respective branded drugs. By abusing the patent litigation process and conspiring to block generic access, Teva, Mylan, and Pfizer forced purchasers to pay for branded products when prescriptions should have been filled with less costly generic options. As a result, Teva enriched itself at the literal expense of American consumers who overpaid by hundreds of millions of dollars for these medications, says the suit. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. Teva Neuroscience, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. Teva Sales & Marketing, Inc. is a sales agent of Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. Cephalon, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., with its principal place of business in West Chester, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alison E. Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com TIM HORTONS: Class Suit Over "Roll Up to Win" Ads Gets Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Lowrie, writing for CBC News, reports that a judge has authorized a class action lawsuit over emails Tim Hortons sent out in error to participants in its popular Roll Up to Win promotion -- but only for Quebec residents. Montreal-based firm LPC Avocats claims some half-million customers across Canada received an email in April 2024 saying they had won a boat through the promotion, only to be told later this wasn't the case. The law firm says those clients should be awarded the boat and trailer they were told they won, plus damages. It says the prize's value is about $64,000. Superior Court Justice Donald Bisson ruled that the class action can move forward, but limited it to Quebec residents because the case hinges on that province's consumer protection laws. "Indeed, and among other things, according to the court, refusing to give the boats to those who were told they had won them -- and even not offering them anything else -- could destroy the public's trust in mobile app contests and justifies the claim for requested punitive damages," Bisson wrote in a judgment dated June 27, 2025. The ruling cited statements by people who described celebrating the news of their "win" with family and Tim Hortons staff, only to be crushed to learn later that they hadn't won. In a phone interview, lawyer Joey Zukran said the company didn't offer customers "even one free coffee" in return for the mistake. "They took the loyalty of their customers for granted, they laughed at them, instead of offering them some form of compensation that maybe would have prevented the filing of a class action," he said in a phone interview. He says the Quebec consumer protection law states merchants and not customers should be held responsible for errors. A spokesperson for Tim Hortons says the company apologized last year to the customers who received the email, and declined to comment further because the case is before the courts. "We apologized last year after some guests received an email in which some prizes that they did not win were included in their contest recap," communications director Michael Oliveira wrote in an email. "We know that the millions of prizes won in the contest were distributed to winners accurately and as per our contest rules." According to the court decision, the lead plaintiff in the suit received an email on April 17, 2024 informing him that he'd won a Tracker Targa 18 WT 2024 boat and its trailer as part of the Roll Up To Win promotion. Later that day, the company sent out a second email blaming "technical errors" for the fact that clients had been incorrectly informed they'd won certain prizes. The company also apologized for the frustration. According to the decision, the company argued in part that the communications did not constitute a consumer contract, and therefore should not fall under consumer protection laws. Bisson rejected that argument, noting the promotion required consumers to purchase something to enter. However, he said the company would have the opportunity to argue its case in detail when it is heard on its merits. The judge added that "an error in Tim Hortons' declaration or a defect in its systems does not exempt it from liability" under Quebec consumer protection laws. Zukran says he isn't sure how many people will be members of the lawsuit under the narrowed criteria. He said he has three months to file the formal lawsuit, called an originating application. The litigation could take a few years to wind its way through the courts unless the company settles, he added. [GN] TORRID LLC: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Class Suit for $13.8MM -------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of Claim Depot reports that consumers who purchased one or more items from Torrid.com while living in Oregon, California or Washington between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2025, may qualify to submit a claim for $15 from a class action settlement. Torrid LLC has agreed to pay $13,862,092.02 to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the company deceptively advertised discounts on its website, Torrid.com. There are an estimated 728,502 class members. Who is eligible for a settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They purchased one or more products from Torrid.com. -- Their purchase was made while residing in Oregon, California or Washington (determined by the order billing address). -- The purchase occurred between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2025. How much is the fake sale class action payment? Class members can select one of these benefits: -- Cash Payment: $15 cash payment -- Credit Benefit: $15 store voucher that can be used on Torrid.com or at any Torrid brick-and-mortar store -- Vouchers do not expire, are transferable and can be combined with other discounts. -- The voucher amount is applied before taxes and shipping are calculated. How to claim a Torrid class action rebate Class members do not need to submit a claim to receive a $15 Torrid voucher. To receive a settlement payment instead of a credit, class members must submit a claim form by the deadline of August 26, 2025. There are two ways to submit a claim: -- Class members can file a claim online. -- Class members can print the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Cline v. Torrid, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 Required claim information The class member ID from the official settlement notice is required to submit a claim for a cash payment. Payout options -- Cash Benefit -- Electronic payment (available for online claim submissions only) -- Paper check mailed to the address provided -- Credit Benefit -- Torrid voucher emailed to address on file with Torrid $13.86 million deceptive pricing settlement fund The settlement fund of $13,862,092.02 will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated to be $129,562.02 -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $2,800,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 each -- Payments or vouchers to class members: Estimated at $10,927,530 Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: August 26, 2025 -- Exclusion deadline: July 28, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: September 19, 2025 When is the Torrid class action settlement payout date? Settlement payments and Torrid vouchers will be issued approximately 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why was there a class action lawsuit and settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged that Torrid LLC deceptively advertised discounts on its website, violating consumer protection laws in California, Oregon and Washington. Plaintiffs claimed the company's advertising practices were misleading. Torrid LLC denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle in order to avoid the risks and costs of continuing litigation and the possibility of a trial. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Electric Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sepehr Daghighian, writing for California Consumer Attorneys, reports that Toyota and Subaru are facing a new class action lawsuit alleging that their jointly developed electric vehicles, the Toyota bZ4X and Subaru Solterra. Each one suffers from a recurring issue with the 12-volt battery system which can lead to repeated failures and leave drivers stranded. The lawsuit points to a widespread design or electrical fault that kills replacement batteries as quickly as the original ones, despite no official fix being offered. History Behind the Lawsuit Filed in the U.S. Eastern District Court of California, the class action centers on the experience of lead plaintiff Wade, a Toyota bZ4X owner whose 12-volt accessory battery has failed three times in under 5,000 miles of driving. Despite replacing the battery twice since March 2023, each new unit drained within weeks or months, leaving the vehicle inoperable and requiring dealership intervention. The complaint alleges that Toyota and Subaru knew about this defect prior to the release of the 2023–2025 bZ4X and Solterra models. The lawsuit claims that both manufacturers ignored consumer complaints, failed to alert new buyers, and have continued selling defective vehicles without a permanent fix. Although the lawsuit doesn't pinpoint the exact technical cause, it highlights that the 12-volt batteries are persistently draining regardless of usage. Online forums, Reddit posts, and NHTSA complaints mirror the plaintiff's experience. With drivers reporting multiple battery failures within the first year of ownership. Which Vehicles Are Affected -- 2023–2025 Toyota bZ4X -- 2023–2025 Subaru Solterra Both models share nearly identical engineering platforms, including the battery and electrical systems that are at the heart of the legal complaint. What Owners Need to Know According to the filing, neither Subaru nor Toyota has publicly acknowledged the widespread nature of the 12-volt battery problem or issued a technical service bulletin or recall. Instead, many owners say they have been offered replacement batteries that eventually suffer the same fate. The class action seeks to represent all affected owners and lessees of bZ4X and Solterra vehicles in the United States, demanding reimbursement for costs, compensation for diminished value, and any other relief the court deems just. How Toyota and Subaru Drivers Can Take Back Control While this class action lawsuit has began, thousands of Toyota and Subaru drivers are likely to be affected by the same 12-volt battery defect, with many expressing dissatisfaction over inadequate solutions. These types of issues often lead to escalated legal action like this, highlighting the importance of protecting consumer rights. If you struggle with vehicle troubles and feel cornered against big vehicle brands, remember it is always better to have experts with you. With extensive experience and successful cases at hand, The Lemon Firm is your best bet. With dedicated team members always at your disposal, the package becomes too good to be true. So, if your car is giving you a headache, don't hesitate to reach out! [GN] TRACTOR SUPPLY: Wins Bid to Transfer Keesler Case to Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania will grant Tractor Supply Company's motion to transfer the case captioned as CHELSEA L. HARRISON KEESLER, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan, Plaintiff, v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01612 (M.D. Pa.) to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a). The plaintiff, Chelsea L. Harrison Keesler, brings this class and representative action complaint against the defendant, Tractor Supply Company, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated for relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The plaintiff is a former Tractor Supply employee who previously worked as an outfitter support specialist with the company. At the time of the plaintiff's employment, Tractor Supply administered and sponsored health insurance coverage under the Tractor Supply Company Health and Welfare Plan. The plaintiff alleges that Tractor Supply provided a tobacco cessation program called Quit Genius. However, the plaintiff avers that prior to the 2023 plan year, the completion of that program did not result in the tobacco surcharge being removed from an employees' payment. The plaintiff alleges that a participant could only avoid the tobacco surcharge if that person had not used "tobacco in the last 12 months" which, in essence, only applied to non-tobacco users. The tobacco surcharge therefore constituted a charge of a discriminatory fee without a reasonable alternative standard because tobacco users had no ability to participate in a program that would refund the fee. The plaintiff further posits that Tractor Supply's plan materials used for communicating information about the surcharge fails to provide participants notice of a reasonable alternative standard and any ability to avoid the tobacco fee. She contends that the surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination requirements, and its collection by Tractor Supply was and remains unlawful. For these reasons, the plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all similarly situated plan participants and beneficiaries, seeking to have the fees returned, and for plan-wide relief under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1109. The Third Circuit lists the following private factors in consideration of a motion to transfer: (a) plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original choice; (b) defendant's preferred forum; (c) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (d) the convenience of the parties as indicated by their elative physical and financial condition; (e) the convenience of the witnesses―but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and (f) the location of the books and records (similarly limited to the extent that files could not be produced in the alternative forum). The plaintiff in this action has brought her case as a proposed class action, and while it is ultimately unclear at this stage of the number of potential participants and beneficiaries, Tractor Supply has noted that there are 1,799 employees living in Tennessee enrolled in the Plan, with 144 Plan participants paying a tobacco surcharge as of 2024, compared to 611 employees living in Pennsylvania enrolled in the Plan, with 68 Plan participants paying a tobacco surcharge. Because the potential plaintiffs are located all over the country and not all located in one spot, it makes sense to center the case where the defendants have their headquarters, the Court concludes. According to Judge Saporito, while the court acknowledges the individual plaintiff's interest in litigating her case in her preferred district with local ties, 'in a potentially complex collective action such as this, a strong public interest exists in having the lawsuit heard in the district at the ‘center of gravity' of the dispute. Moreover, it makes sense that the burdens of litigation fall on prospective juries and court personnel in the district having the most direct connection with the claims. The Court finds that Tractor Supply has met its burden in establishing that transfer is appropriate. Judge Saporito holds that the underlying action concerns a potential class action for policy decisions formulated and implemented in Tractor Supply's headquarters in Brentwood, Tennessee, with participants and beneficiaries potentially spread across the nation. Moreover, the majority of factors weigh in favor of Tractor Supply's motion to transfer. Accordingly, the motion will be granted. A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NROnL2 from PacerMonitor.com. TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Katz Sues Over Breach of Insurance Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- BARRY KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03129 (E.D. Pa., June 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging the Plaintiff and Class members for premium taxes on the surrender date rather than on the contract's Annuity Date. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's contract provides, "Any charges made by [the insurer] attributable to premium taxes imposed by a state or other government will be deducted at the Annuity Date." By making deductions for premium taxes prior to the contract's Annuity Date, the Defendant breached its contract with the Plaintiff, says the suit. Transamerica Life Insurance Company is an insurance company, headquarters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC 9 Tanner Street, Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Email: jswidler@swartz-legal.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 Email: jshub@shublawyers.com ULTRA CLEAN: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Schweiger Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Ergul Ilaslan's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of his selection of lead counsel in the case captioned as OFIR SCHWEIGER, Plaintiff, v. ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-02768-JSC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Ofir Schweiger instituted this putative class action against Ultra Clean Holdings and two individuals for making materially false and misleading statements and omissions to artificially inflate the price of its stock in violation of the Securities Exchange Act, and related regulations. The complaint alleges two claims against Defendants under Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5. Subsequently, four putative class members moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of their respective selections of lead counsel. After opening briefs were filed, two movants withdrew their motions and one submitted a motion of non-opposition. So, Mr. İlaslan's motion is the only motion currently pending before the Court. The Court finds Mr. İlaslan has demonstrated the largest financial interest in the litigation and made a prima facie showing he is an adequate and typical class representative. The PSLRA presumes the most adequate plaintiff is the individual who: (1) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice; (2) has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Mr. İlaslan satisfies all three elements of Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)'s presumption, and no other party has shown otherwise, he is presumed the most adequate plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court appoints Mr. İlaslan as class representative. Mr. İlaslan selected the Rosen Law Firm P.A. to serve as lead counsel for the class Accordingly, the Court appoints Rosen Law as lead counsel. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RJ59v6 from PacerMonitor.com. UNCHARTED LABS: Justice Sues Over Copyrighted Songs' Infringement ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY JUSTICE and 5TH WHEEL RECORDS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNCHARTED LABS, INC., d/b/a Udio.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05026 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106(1) and 106(2). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of copying the Plaintiffs' copyrighted songs, along with copyrighted songs belonging to the Class members, and ingesting them into its AI model without consent. The Defendant used and/or accessed streaming services on which the Plaintiffs and Class members had licensed their copyrighted songs to illegally copy and reproduce the Plaintiffs' and Class members' songs for purposes of training its generative AI model. The Defendant never even attempted to seek permission from and give credit to the millions of independent artists and other rightsholders whose works make the Udio Website even possible, including the Plaintiffs and Class members. As a result of the Defendant's infringement of the Plaintiffs' and Class members' copyrighted songs, they suffered damages, says the suit. 5th Wheel Records, Inc. is a recording company based in Jefferson City, Tennessee. Uncharted Labs, Inc., doing business as Udio.com, is a generative artificial intelligence (AI) service provider, located in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: jellzey@eksm.com lmontgomery@eksm.com - and - Krystle Delgado, Esq. DELGADO ENTERTAINMENT LAW, PLLC 6803 E. Main St., Ste. 1116 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Email: krystle@delgadoentertainmentlaw.com - and - Arkady Frehktman, Esq. FREKHTMAN & ASSOC 60 Bay 26th Street Brooklyn, NY 11214 Email: arkady@866attylaw.com UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Birthright Citizenship Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU reports that on June 27, 2025, immigrants rights' advocates filed a new nationwide class-action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The lawsuit is in response to Supreme Court ruling that potentially opens the door for partial enforcement of the executive order. This new case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to the executive order, and their parents. The same group of organizations filed a similar suit in January 2025 in the same court, on behalf of groups with members whose babies born on U.S. soil will be denied citizenship under the order, including New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Make the Road New York. The court issued a ruling protecting members of those organizations, and that case is pending at the First Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral argument set for August 1. Three other lawsuits originally obtained nationwide injunctions protecting everyone subject to the order, but the Supreme Court's decision narrowed those injunctions, potentially leaving some children without protection. This new case seeks protection for all families in the country, filling the gaps that may be left by the existing litigation. Birthright citizenship is the principle that every baby born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. The Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantees the citizenship of all children born in the United States (with the extremely narrow exception of children of foreign diplomats) regardless of race, color, or ancestry. Specifically, it states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The lawsuit charges the Trump administration with flouting the Constitution, congressional intent, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent, and it is national in scope. "Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case. "The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child." "This executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history, and it would create a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights. No politician can ever decide who among those born in our country is worthy of citizenship -- and we will keep fighting to ensure that every child born in the United States has their right to citizenship protected," said Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. "Citizenship is a right afforded to us by birth, not by privilege," said Karla McKanders, director of the Legal Defense Fund's Thurgood Marshall Institute. "The Trump administration's executive order is an unlawful attempt to entrench racial hierarchies and establish a second class of citizens in the United States. We will continue working to ensure that birthright citizenship -- a right granted by the U.S. Constitution -- is protected, and that families are not torn apart because of this executive order." "In the face of authoritarian attacks, we're filing a class-action lawsuit to defend the fundamental rights of immigrant families across the country," said Aarti Kohli, executive director of Asian Law Caucus. "Asian American communities know firsthand the dangers when citizenship becomes a weapon of exclusion -- from the Chinese Exclusion Act to Wong Kim Ark to Japanese American incarceration. It is this legacy that drives us to preserve a constitutional promise that has defined American citizenship for over a century." "The Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship, and no procedural ruling will stop us from fighting to uphold that promise," said Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund. "Our plaintiffs, and millions of families across this country, deserve clarity, stability, and justice. We look forward to making our case in court again." "While some of this week's decisions have the potential to shift our legal strategies, they will not change the commitments the ACLU has held for over 100 years," said Molly Curren Rowles, executive director of the ACLU of Maine. "The constitutional principles that form the foundation of freedom in this country have always been challenging, complex, and multifaceted. The president's executive order violates the plain language of the 14th Amendment and flouts fundamental American values." "For more than 125 years, birthright citizenship has made the United States the strong and dynamic nation that it is. The Trump administration wants to end that right and create a permanent subclass with no vote, no voice, and no due process protection," said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "We simply won't let that happen, and are using every tool in our toolkit to defend birthright citizenship." [GN] UNITED STATES: Orr Appeals Motion to Stay Ruling to 1st Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- ASHTON ORR, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part their motion to stay agency action and for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Ashton Orr, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10313-JEK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of the Trump Administration's abrupt, discriminatory, and dangerous reversal of settled United States passport policy. On Feb. 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay agency action and for a preliminary injunction, which Judge Julia E. Kobick granted in part and denied in part on Apr. 18, 2025. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief. As discussed, the Plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that Executive Order 14168 and the Passport Policy violate their Fifth Amendment equal protection rights, and that the Passport Policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). With the exception of Plaintiff Reid Solomon-Lane, the Plaintiffs are also likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction, and the balance of the equities weighs in their favor. Further, the preliminary injunction requested by the Plaintiffs accords with the government's position regarding the appropriate scope of relief. The appellate case is entitled Orr, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 25-1579, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on June 13, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners ASHTON ORR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Isaac D. Chaput, Esq. William P. Kasper, Esq. Ansel F. Carpenter, Esq. Gavin W. Jackson, Esq. Jonathan Thompson, Esq. Sean M. Bender, Esq. Robert C. Gianchetti, Esq. Yuval Mor, Esq. Alyssa L. Curcio, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 E-mail: ichaput@cov.com wkasper@cov.com acarpenter@cov.com gjackson@cov.com jthompson@cov.com sbender@cov.com rgianchetti@cov.com ymor@cov.com acurcio@cov.com - and - Jessie J. Rossman, Esq. Zoe R. Kreitenberg, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. One Center Plaza, Suite 850 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 482-3170 E-mail: jrossman@aclum.org zkreitenberg@aclum.org - and - Jon W. Davidson, Esq. Li Nowlin-Sohl, Esq. Sruti J. Swaminathan, Esq. Malita V. Picasso, Esq. James D. Esseks, Esq. Aditi Fruitwala, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 E-mail: jondavidson@aclu.org lnowlin-sohl@aclu.org sswaminathan@aclu.org mpicasso@aclu.org jesseks@aclu.org afruitwala@aclu.org Defendants-Respondents DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. are represented by: Elizabeth Brooke Layendecker, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L. Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 616-5046 Email: elizabeth.b.layendecker@usdoj.gov - and - Michael Velchik, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 860-8388 Email: michael.velchik@usdoj.gov - and - Rayford A. Farquhar, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 748-3100 Facsimile: (617) 748-3971 Email: rayford.farquhar@usdoj.gov UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Football Coach Added to Hacking Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Harbaugh was added Friday, June 27, to a lawsuit against the University of Michigan and a former assistant football coach who is accused of hacking into the computer accounts of college athletes across the U.S. to look for intimate photos. Attorneys claim Harbaugh, who was Michigan's coach from 2015 to 2023, and others knew that Matt Weiss was seen viewing private information on a computer in December 2022 but still allowed him to continue working as co-offensive coordinator in a national playoff game roughly a week later. Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel and other officials were also added to the lawsuit in federal court in Detroit. "The university's delay in taking meaningful protective action until after a high-stakes game sends a clear message: Student welfare was secondary," said Parker Stinar, who is the lead lawyer in a class action lawsuit arising from a criminal investigation of Weiss. Messages seeking comment from Manuel and Harbaugh, who is the head coach of the Los Angeles Chargers, were not immediately returned. Separately, Weiss has been charged with identity theft and unauthorized computer access from 2015 to 2023. The indictment says he got access to the social media, email and cloud storage accounts of more than 2,000 college athletes, as well as more than 1,300 students or alumni from schools across the U.S., to find private images, primarily of women. He has pleaded not guilty. "Had Harbaugh implemented basic oversight of his staff, plaintiffs and the class would have been protected against predators such as Weiss," the updated lawsuit states. "Instead, Weiss was a highly compensated asset that was promoted by and within the football program, from which position he was able to, and did, target female student athletes." The lawsuit says a staff member saw Weiss viewing private information at Schembechler Hall, headquarters for the football team, around Dec. 21, 2022, and reported it before Michigan played TCU in a playoff game days later on Dec. 31. Weiss was fired a few weeks later in January 2023 during an investigation of his computer use. Earlier this year, after charges were filed, Harbaugh told reporters that he didn't know anything about Weiss' troubles until after the playoff game. He said the allegations were "shocking." Weiss worked for Harbaugh's brother, John, on the coaching staff of the NFL's Baltimore Ravens before joining the Michigan team in 2021. The lawsuit says Weiss' university computer had encryption software that had to be disabled by an external vendor as part of the investigation. Authorities disclosed in April that thousands of intimate photos and videos were found on his electronic devices and cloud storage accounts. [GN] VICTORIA'S SECRET: Court Allows Lead Plaintiff Substitution ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint in the case captioned as VIVIAN SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VICTORIA'S SECRET & CO., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-06654-MMC (N.D. Cal.). In the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint, Salazar, who describes herself as a visually impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer, alleges she visited the Victoria's Secret website in May 2023 and made multiple attempts to purchase merchandise, including but not limited to, pajama sets and other sleepwear, for instore pickup at its location in the San Francisco Centre Mall, but was unsuccessful because the website's Select Store buttons were inoperative with Salazar's screen reader. In particular, Salazar alleges, the Select Store buttons present on the Checkout page were not coded to allow screen readers to announce whether a given store was selected; rather, when the buttons were activated, Salazar's screen reader announced nothing, which prevented her from selecting her nearest store to pick up her purchase. Based on the allegations, Salazar asserts on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class two causes of action: Count I, alleging a violation of Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and Count II, alleging a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Salazar now seeks leave to substitute Juanita Herrera as the lead plaintiff in the putative class action. In support of such request, Salazar's counsel states that Salazar has advised counsel she is unable to continue serving as class representative due to unforeseen health concerns, and has submitted a proposed Second Amended Complaint. In the Proposed SAC, Herrera alleges that she is legally blind and uses screen reading software, that she attempted to use Victoria's Secret's website in September 2022 to purchase merchandise for instore pick-up, and that the website would not allow her to select a retail store for pick-up. The legal claims asserted in the Proposed SAC, as well as the definition of the putative class, are identical to those in the FAC. In opposing the instant motion, Victoria's Secret initially argues that, as a result of Salazar's decision not to serve as lead plaintiff for the putative class, a case or controversy no longer exists. The Court disagrees. No discovery has occurred, other than initial disclosures. Additionally, the factual bases for Salazar's claims and Herrera's claims are similar and the legal claims are identical. Moreover, a case management conference has yet to be scheduled, let alone conducted. Under such circumstances, the Court finds Victoria's Secret would not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment. The Court finds Salazar is not proceeding in bad faith. The Court also finds there has been no undue delay in seeking substitution. The Court concludes the requested leave to amend is appropriate. Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is granted, on the condition that the SAC include factual allegations identifying the store or stores Herrera intended to use for pickup of merchandise and facts to support a finding that she intends to use Victoria's Secret's website in the future to order merchandise for pickup at one or more Victoria's Secret locations. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SnLINU from PacerMonitor.com. WALDORF=ASTORIA MGMT: Partial Bid to Dismiss Bolos Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled LAURIE BOLOS, ET AL., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALDORF=ASTORIA MANAGEMENT LLC OPERATING AS GRAND WAILEA, a Waldorf Astoria Resort; ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00104-JMS-KJM (D. Haw.), Judge J. Michael Seabright of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii denies the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. On March 31, 2025, Defendants Waldorf=Astoria Management LLC, GW Manager LLC, BRE Iconic GWR Owner LLC, and John Paul Oliver filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss, challenging three of the seven Counts of the Fourth Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint ("4AC") in this action arising from alleged wrongful classification of certain workers as independent contractors rather than employees at the Grand Wailea, a luxury resort on Maui. The action was brought as a combined individual, class, and collective action alleging Hawaii and Federal statutory wage and hour violations (and related causes of action) on behalf of numerous "massage therapists, nail technicians, estheticians, and hair stylists who worked at the Spa Grande located within the Grand Wailea-Waldorf Astoria Resort, 3850 Wailea [Alanui] Drive, Wailea, Hawai'i, 96753." On Jan. 13, 2025, the Court issued a comprehensive Order ("the January 2025 Order") granting in part and denying in part a prior motion to dismiss. The January 2025 Order details and explains the Plaintiffs' basic allegations as set forth in a prior 77-page, 16-Count, version of the Complaint. That Order dismissed some claims without prejudice and with leave to amend. In response to the January 2025 Order, the Plaintiffs filed their 87-page, seven-Count 4AC, which amended certain claims to attempt to address pleading deficiencies. The Defendants have responded to the 4AC with the current Motion to Dismiss, contesting the sufficiency of (or parts of) the allegations in Count II ("Unpaid Wages"), Count V ("Unjust Enrichment and Restitution"), and Count VI (unlawful retaliation under both federal and state law). The Defendants first challenge the Plaintiffs' revised Hawaii common law claim for equitable relief in Count V (titled "Unjust Enrichment and Restitution Quantum Meruit Brought Against All Defendants as a Class Action by Plaintiffs and All Similarly Situated Individuals." The Defendants seek to dismiss Count V, arguing that the equitable claim fails because the Plaintiffs have adequate remedies at law, such as making administrative claims for benefits or penalties with the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations ("DLIR"), or with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") for a refund of self-employment taxes they may have paid. They make a related argument that the Plaintiffs may not make a claim in equity based on a statutory violation if that statute lacks a private cause of action. Judge Seabright notes that the January 2025 Order dismissed this equitable claim with leave to amend because the Plaintiff had not pled how they do not have an adequate remedy at law nor did they explain how they should be "entitled to pursue alternative theories." The 4AC, however, now sufficiently alleges a plausible claim for equitable relief. It explains the type of benefits they claim they were deprived of by the Defendants' allegedly wrongful misclassification, and it alleges that existing remedies are inadequate. Judge Seabright opines that the Plaintiffs' opposition to the instant motion sufficiently questions whether the remedies identified by the Defendants (administrative complaints with the Hawaii DLIR, claims or actions for refunds with the IRS, or wage claims under Hawaii law and the FLSA) would be adequate to preclude equitable claims. Judge Seabright adds that even if a Hawaii statute does not provide a private cause of action, it does not necessarily follow that the statute precludes common law remedies--rather, preclusion is a matter of legislative intent. At minimum, it is unclear at this pleading stage whether Hawaii's statutory scheme precludes equitable remedies, Judge Seabright points out. Given the established principle that a plaintiff may plead alternative remedies, it is appropriate to allow the unjust enrichment/quantum merit claim to proceed past the pleading stage, Judge Seabright adds. The Defendants next seek to dismiss Count VI's claim for retaliation under both federal and state law. The Defendants challenge both the second (adverse action) and third (causation) elements. Given that at least some of the alleged retaliation occurred in the midst of ongoing litigation--such as making employment offers to only some of the Retaliation Subclass, or depriving some of seniority in 2024--the Court is not convinced that the claim fails for lack of causation (especially at this motion to dismiss stage). Similarly, the Court rejects at this stage the Defendants' argument that certain Plaintiffs cannot prove causation because they were not added to the operative Complaint until after the alleged adverse action occurred (thus, contending that the "protected activity" of filing suit could not have caused the prior alleged adverse action). Challenges to any particular Plaintiff could be a matter for summary judgment if evidence of causation is lacking, but at this stage, plausible claims are stated, Judge Seabright points out. Lastly, the Defendants challenge Count II of the 4AC, which alleges more generic claims for unpaid wages--that is, distinct from overtime and minimum wage statutory violations. It includes claims under Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") Sections 388-10(a) and 388-11(a), which authorize a private action for amounts of unpaid wages, as well as interest on those amounts. It alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked and all commissions earned on the work they performed, and that the Plaintiffs frequently worked "off-the-clock" due to the misclassification scheme. The Defendants primarily seek dismissal in reliance on Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 646 (9th Cir. 2014). The January 2025 Order applied Landers and dismissed the wage and overtime claims without prejudice for lack of specificity. But it is not clear that Landers (and its requirement for situations of "at least one workweek in which [a plaintiff] worked in excess of forty hours") applies outside the minimum wage and overtime context, to more general claims of unpaid wages, Judge Seabright notes. Rather, Judge Seabright opines, the 4AC sufficiently alleges that the intentional misclassification of the Plaintiffs led to hours worked for which the Plaintiffs were not paid (even if no overtime or minimum wage violations occurred), lost commissions due to Grand Wailea discounts, and "comped" clients' bills by the Grand Wailea. Given the detailed allegations of how the misclassification occurred, Judge Seabright finds there is a plausible claim that the Plaintiffs were not paid wages or benefits for hours that were worked. And, because Count II can include claims for wages not paid for all hours worked--but are not otherwise violations of overtime or minimum wage laws--the Court will not strike Count II as duplicative, as the Defendants seek in the alternative. For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/28zufrps from PacerMonitor.com. WBY INC: Appeals Attorney Fee Judgment in Barker Suit to 11th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WBY, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees in the lawsuit entitled Soraya Barker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WBY, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02725-MLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On May 31, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees, which Judge Michael L. Brown granted on May 14, 2025. The Court grants the motion for an award of attorney fees Under the FLSA and awards Jones & Walden LLC $22,442.50 in attorneys' fees in this case. It is further ordered that the $22,442.50 award in this case is based upon the fact that the Court awarded the Plaintiff $387,881.23 for "Global" Class C fees in the Becton case. In the event that recovery is not made for the Global Class C fees awarded in the Becton case, the Court reserves its jurisdiction to re-open this case to modify the award in this case. On May 15, 2025, the Court entered attorney fee judgment. The appellate case is entitled Soraya Barker v. WBY, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-12083, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on June 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee SORAYA BARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ainsworth G. Dudley, Esq. AINSWORTH G. DUDLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 53319 Atlanta, GA 30355 Telephone: (404) 687-8205 - and - Jonah A. Flynn, Esq. FLYNN LAW FIRM, LLC 1201 W. Peachtree St., Ste. 2625 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 835-9660 - and - Leon S. Jones, Esq. Thomas Tillman McClendon, Esq. JONES & WALDEN, LLC 699 Piedmont Ave. NE Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 564-9300 Defendants-Appellants WBY, INC., et al. are represented by: Andrew Yancey Coffman, Esq. PARKS CHESIN & WALBERT, PC 1355 Peachtree St., Ste. 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 - and - Douglas Duerr, Esq. Sharon P. Morgan, Esq. ELARBEE THOMPSON SAPP & WILSON, LLP 229 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 800 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 659-6700 (404) 582-8406 - and - Erica V. Mason, Esq. AKERMAN, LLP 999 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 733-9800 - and - K. Prabhaker Reddy, Esq. THE REDDY LAW FIRM, PC The Gates at Sugarloaf 11175 Cicero Dr. Bldg. 200, Ste. 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 629-3246 - and - John K. Rezac, Esq. TAYLOR DUMA LLP 1600 Parkwood Cir., Ste. 200 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (678) 336-7197 WEAR PACT: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Johnston Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ BIANCA JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEAR PACT LLC, Defendant, Cas No. 1:25-cv-01906-CYC (D. Colo., June 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending telemarketing text messages to the telephone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its goods and services without prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Wear Pact LLC is a company that manufactures and sells organic and fair-trade apparel and accessories, with its headquarters in Boulder, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 732-2792 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com - and - Seth Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW 6501 Park of Commerce Blvd., Suite 253 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (754) 778-9660 Email: seth@lehrmanlaw.com WINCUP INC: Heavey False Advertising Suit Remanded to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California remands the case captioned as JEFFREY HEAVEY, an individual on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, v. WINCUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-01099-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.). to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a state court class action complaint against Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 and California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17500 alleging that Defendant falsely advertised its expanded polystyrene foam products as "recyclable" when they are not. On April 30, 2025, Defendant removed the case to the District Court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a)(1), but in fact, removal should have been made pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(d)(2). On May 1, 2025, the District Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Defendant had not alleged or shown that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. On May 16, 2025, Defendant filed a response with a declaration of its President and Chief Revenue Officer stating that the earned revenues from the products at issue in California during the past four years exceeds $5 million. On May 23, 2025, the District Court issued an order following order to show cause concluding that Defendant had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 because the restitution alleged in the complaint would necessarily be an amount lower than the earned revenue of exceeding $5 million asserted by Defendant. Therefore, the District Court granted Defendant one final opportunity to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. On June 4, 2025, Defendant filed a response reaffirming that damages under the UCL and FAL claim are limited to restitution and injunctive relief and that disgorgement and attorneys' fees are not available under the FAL and UCL. Despite conceding that Plaintiff has failed to allege any basis for monetary damages and recognizing his only relief is restitution and injunctive relief, Defendant, nonetheless, argues the District Court has CAFA jurisdiction. Defendant claims the District Court may exercise CAJA jurisdiction based on Plaintiff's demand letter, dated March 26, 2025, where he sought a right of recovery in excess of $5 million for violation of the California Legal Remedies Act which provides for actual, statutory and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees. However, the complaint does not allege a CLRA cause of action. Because jurisdiction is based on the allegations in the complaint, Defendant has not demonstrated the CAFA amount in controversy has been satisfied, the District Court finds. Therefore, because Defendant, after two attempts, has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in this CAFA case exceeds $5,000,000, the District Court SUA SPONTE remands the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uASiTC from PacerMonitor.com. YOSEFARIEL INC: Parking Lot Not ADA Compliant, Suarez Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL SUAREZ, Plaintiff v. YOSEFARIEL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00132 (S.D. Tex., June 18, 2025) is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and its attendant regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. According to the complaint, the Defendant refused to provide Plaintiff and others similarly situated persons with physical disability and mobility impairments with sufficient ADA-compliant parking in the parking lot owned by the Defendant. The Plaintiff claims that at the South Padre Island location, there are no ADA-compliant van-accessible spaces on the shortest access route to the business and no ADA-required handicapped parking signs. Yosefariel, Inc. owns, manages, controls, and leases the improvements and building where the NEW WAVE business is situated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Tharpe, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF R. BRUCE THARPE, PLLC PO Box 101 Olmito, TX 78575 Telephone: (956) 255-5111 E-mail: rbtharpe@aol.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 ***