250708.mbx

250708.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 8, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 135 Headlines AIRTEX MANUFACTURING: Faces Semotuk Suit Over Time-Rounding Policy BLUEBIRD BIO: Amended Gill Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice CARESPOT OF ORLANDO: Paret Seeks OT Pay for Medical Assistants CEDAR LAKE, IN: Sella Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation CHARRITO PLAZA: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says CORTEVA INC: Attorneys' Fees & Costs OK'd in Cockerill ERISA Suit DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Bell Remanded to San Diego County Superior Court DOORDASH INC: Morris Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Ill. DOYON LIMITED: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Goebel Says EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Parrillo Claims EYEMART EXPRESS: Rand's Amended Privacy Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice GENERAL MOTORS: Manborde's Bid to Join Speerly Class Suit Denied GENERAL MOTORS: Sells Vehicles With Engine Defect, Muhammad Claims GOOGLE LLC: Charges Customers for Alleged Ads, PVC Fence Says HOMARY INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Filing in Lawyer Due Feb. 20, 2026 HTLC VENTURES: Zachman Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification HUNGRY POT: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Cao Suit Tossed IHG MANAGEMENT: Amended Bid to Certify Class Action Tossed INSIGHT GLOBAL: Paul Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification JEWISH VOICE: Parties Seek Order Correcting Briefing Schedule KBR INC: Sadler Sues Over Termination Without Prior Notice LIFECELL SUPPLEMENTS: Fagnani Sues Over Website's Access Barriers LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 2 LV CONTRACTING: Moises Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL MDL 1871: Court Certifies Class in Avandia Liability Suit META PLATFORMS: Court Says AI Training Is Fair Use NIP & TUCK PLASTIC: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: $508K in Fees & Costs Recommended in Rzepkoski OGEE INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OPENAI INC: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of CIR Docs Tossed PALMDALE GLASS & MIRROR: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PALMDALE GLASS: Plaintiff Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. PARK AVENUE LEATHER: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PENSKE MEDIA: Faces Krivin Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions PRIORITY WASTE: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation PV ADVISORS: Partial Claims Drop Pushed in Goldovsky Ponzi Case PYRAMID DOWNTOWN: Acosta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: $3.95M Class Deal in Stewart Gets Prelim Nod RESEARCH TRIANGLE: Schwab Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice RIVERSIDE, CA: Illegally Takes Property Interests, Rashik Says RIVIANA FOODS: Scott Sues Over Heavy Metals' Presence on Grain Rice ROSE INTERNATIONAL: Richards Suit Removed to C.D. California SAITEX USA LLC: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SCDS INC: Laccinole Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California SELECT MEDICAL: Fails to Secure PII, PHI, Eddings Suit Alleges SERVICEAIDE INC: Mendez Suit Removed to W.D. New York SIG SAUER: Seeks Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority SKYMOUNT PROPERTY: Stockdale Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio SLEEPARE FLORIDA: Ariza Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users SPARTAN SOLAR: Matthews Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida SPRINGER NATURE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Hahn STAPLES THE OFFICE: Class Cert Filing in Weiser Due May 11, 2026 STEPHEN AUSTIN: Faces Myers Class Suit Over Athletic Program STERICYCLE INC: Huerta Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations STRYKER CORPORATION: Belleque Suit Removed to W.D. Washington STRYKER CORPORATION: Muniz Suit Removed to W.D. Michigan SUNFLOWER BANK: Ross Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA SYRACUSE INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 7 TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Fraudulent Transfers TASKUS INC: Prelim Approval of $17.5M Deal in Lozada Recommended TEVA PHARMA: Law Firms Partially Compelled to Show Docs in Burge THORNTONS LLC: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California THORNTONS LLC: Phillips Suit Removed to N.D. California UHS OF MADERA: Reyes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. US CLAIMS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Koprowski Says US FINANCIAL: Sanchez's Voluntary Dismissal from Bumpus Suit Okayed USA: Doe et al. Win Partial Relief on Parole Benefit Suspensions UST GLOBAL INC: Mistry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VNGR BEVERAGE: $8.9M Class Deal in Poppi Suit Gets Prelim Approval WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Chrisman Sues Over Wage and Hour Laws Breach WILINE NETWORKS: Court Narrows Claims in W.A. Call Class Suit ZEVIA LLC: Moledina Suit Removed to C.D. California ZIMO EVENT: Barfield Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ********* AIRTEX MANUFACTURING: Faces Semotuk Suit Over Time-Rounding Policy ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL SEMOTUK, on behalf of himself individually and all other similarly situated employees v. AIRTEX MANUFACTURING, LLLP d/b/a ENGINEERED AIR, Case No. 2:25-cv-02351 (D. Kan., June 30, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kansas Wage Payment Act by utilizing a time-rounding policy that, in the aggregate, undercounts hourly employees' worked time, and by automatically deducting a 30-minute meal period from employee pay when no such break has been taken or provided. Semotuk brings this collective and class action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees of Defendant to recover unpaid wages and damages owed under the FLSA, the KWPA, and Kansas common law. The Plaintiff and the putative collective and class members were hourly, non-exempt, employees of the Defendant, and each of them had a scheduled time to start and end their shift. Airtex designs, manufactures, and sells heating, ventilating, and air conditioning units.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan A. Crockett, Esq. John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 754 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 875 9339 E-mail: bthoenen@hkm.com ecrockett@hkm.com jziegelmeyer@hkm.com ktodd@hkm.com BLUEBIRD BIO: Amended Gill Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as GARRY GILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLUEBIRD BIO, INC.,Civil Action No. 24-cv-10803-PBS (D. Mass.) without prejudice. Defendant Bluebird bio ("bluebird") is a biotechnology company developing gene therapies. The company's leadership included Defendants Andrew Obenshain (CEO), Christopher Krawtschuk (CFO), and Richard Colvin (Chief Medical Officer). It experienced financial difficulties and announced internally in June 2023 that it would need a cash infusion and only had enough money to continue operations through February 1, 2024. In 2023, bluebird submitted a Biologics License Application to the Food and Drug Administration for Lyfgenia, or "lovo-cel," a treatment for sickle cell disease. The company also applied for a priority review voucher worth $103 million. lovo-cel was merely Zynteglo repackaged to treat a new disease and bring in additional revenue. Zynteglo and lovo-cel share an active ingredient. During clinical trials, three of 50 patients (6%) died, one due to sudden cardiac death and two due to leukemia On December 8, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved lovo-cel but denied the priority review voucher application and required a black box warning about blood cancer risks. bluebird's stock dropped from $4.81 to $2.86 per share. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants made false or misleading statements regarding: (1) the possibility that the Food and Drug Administration would require a black box warning and Colvin stated that the potential for a box warning was something anticipated by bluebird and it was built into its commercial projections; (2) the relationship between lovo-cel and blood cancers; and (3) the chance of receiving a priority review voucher. Claims were brought under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The Defendants disputed that any challenged statements were false or misleading and argued the Plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting scienter. Regarding the priority review voucher, they contended the FDA's determination that lovo-cel and Zynteglo share an active ingredient was not inevitable from the start, particularly since determining active ingredients in gene therapies requires scientific judgment. They also argued that Obenshain's statements were opinions conveying uncertainty rather than definitive predictions, as evidenced by his repeated use of "I don't think" and "I think." Judge Saris applied standards under Federal Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Securities fraud claims require alleging: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission; (2) scienter; (3) a connection with the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation. She found that Obenshain's May 2023 statement was not false or misleading because his use of "I don't think" and "I think" conveyed opinion lacking certainty. She determined that a reasonable investor would have understood him to be conveying an opinion that lacked certainty about the Food and Drug Administration's focus with regard to the label. Regarding the November 2023 earnings call, Judge Saris found that Obenshain's failure to mention black box warnings was not actionable because he fully disclosed that the Food and Drug Administration may require lovo-cel's label to reflect the leukemia deaths and said deaths would "certainly" be on the label. Judge Saris acknowledged lacking adequate information to evaluate whether Krawtschuk's statements about the priority review voucher were false because neither the complaint nor briefing described how the FDA determines active ingredients in biologics. Even assuming the priority review voucher statements were false, Judge Saris found that the Plaintiff failed to plead scienter. The complaint contained no admissions, internal records or witnessed discussions suggesting that at the time they made the statements claimed to be misleading, the defendant officers were aware that they were withholding vital information. She noted bluebird's financial difficulties provided motive but found this inference significantly weakened by the Plaintiff's failure to allege that bluebird actually raised money during the period between Krawtschuk's initial statement about a priority review voucher and the Food and Drug Administration's announcement that it was not awarding one. Judge Saris determined it was more likely that bluebird genuinely believed that there was a possibility that the FDA would conclude that lovo-cel and Zynteglo do not share an active ingredient. She characterized the Plaintiff's theory as "fraud by hindsight" insufficient under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. For these reasons, Judge Saris allowed bluebird's motion to dismiss without prejudice, denying the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend without explanation of proposed changes. She ordered that bluebird's motion to dismiss is allowed without prejudice to the filing of a motion for leave to amend the complaint within thirty days. Judge Saris dismissed the putative class action securities fraud complaint, finding the Plaintiff failed to adequately plead material misrepresentations and scienter under federal securities laws and the Private Securities Litigation Reform. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xQPncg CARESPOT OF ORLANDO: Paret Seeks OT Pay for Medical Assistants -------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE PARET and AWILDA ALFONSO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CARESPOT OF ORLANDO/HSI URGENT CARE LLC, Case No. 226343932 (Fla. Cir., Orange and Osceola Cty., June 30, 2025) seeks to recover allegedly unpaid overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers who worked for the Defendant as Patient Service Advocates or Medical Assistants under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege that during the course of their employment with CareSpot during the Collective Period, they and the Putative Collective Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in each workweek, but were not compensated for all hours worked at the applicable overtime pay rate. CareSpot provides X-rays, vaccines, pediatric services, illness treatments, and occupational health services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com CEDAR LAKE, IN: Sella Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Sella, Christopher Craft, and Mark Beyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, INDIANA, Case No. 2:25-cv-00284 (N.D. Ind., June 24, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for unpaid overtime compensation. Cedar Lake failed to pay the Plaintiffs regular hourly rate of pay over 40 hours. Cedar Lake has also failed and refused to compensate other similarly situated CLFD employees for each hour of compensatory time used whenever such employees have used compensatory time during tours of duty in which they were scheduled to work more than 106 hours. By failing and refusing to compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees for each hour of compensatory time at their regular hourly rates of pay, Cedar Lake has violated the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been employed by Cedar Lake. Cedar Lake is a municipality located within this judicial district in Lake County, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Burns, Esq. David Huffman-Gottschling, Esq. JACOBS, BURNS, ORLOVE & HERNANDEZ, LLP 1 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1620 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312.372.1646 Email: cburns@jbosh.com davidhg@jbosh.com CHARRITO PLAZA: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says ------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. El CHARRITO PLAZA, INC. and EL CHARRITO OF FLORIDA CITY INC. D/B/A EL CHARRITO MINI MART, Case No. 1:25-cv-22917-RAR (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Defendant owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the suit. The Defendant owned and operated the commercial mini mart at 636 W. Palm Drive, Florida City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com CORTEVA INC: Attorneys' Fees & Costs OK'd in Cockerill ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case ROBERT F. COCKERILL et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORTEVA, INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-3966(E.D. Pa), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and supported it with numerous exhibits, including detailed background information about most of the lawyers who participated most actively in this case in either the trial or various motion practice events that took place over the four years plus that this case has been pending. The case represents a textbook example of how a group of attorneys, who have supported their petition with strong factual authentications of their skills and backgrounds, that enabled them to represent several clients as class representatives, to secure certification of classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 by the Court, as to which the Third Circuit rejected an appeal by defendant. Judge Baylson noted that the Plaintiff's counsel, although having indicated to the Defendant a sincere interest in entering into settlement negotiations, were apparently rebuffed consistently and constantly by the Defendant and thus had no choice but to bring the case to trial. He observed that the record itself, consisting of six trial days, three on liability and three on damages, plus numerous briefs on many different issues, is subject to review by the Third Circuit. He specifically noted that the Plaintiff's counsel were always well prepared for every event in the Court, had prepared and filed excellent legal memoranda, and represented their clients, the class representatives, and the members of the putative classes with great skill and ability. The Court acknowledged that the Defendant's counsel did not miss any opportunities to represent their clients in the best way possible, in the fine traditions of great Philadelphia lawyers. Judge Baylson noted that the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint, defended against the Motion to Certify a Class, sought summary judgment in favor of their clients, disputed basically every motion filed by Plaintiff, and vigorously cross-examined his witnesses at trial. Judge Baylson applied the leading Third Circuit case, "Ursic v. Bethlehem Mines, 719 F.2d 670, 673 (3d Cir. 1983)," and found that plaintiff satisfied all required factors: a. The Plaintiff has shown that the Defendant was 'culpable' but did not have to prove 'bad faith' and has not clearly shown that the Defendant is guilty of 'bad faith'—although there is in the record abundant evidence that it made misrepresentations and, even more seriously, cloaked their decisions in subtle but misleading terminology so it was difficult for its employees to know exactly what was happening to them and their pension rights as a result of the 'spinoff' that took place on June 1, 2019. b. The Defendant, one of the largest corporations in the United States, clearly has the ability to pay. c. Awarding attorneys' fees will further the objectives of ERISA and will likely deter behavior that falls short of bad faith conduct. d. The case is a class action, and numerous individuals who are members of a certified class will benefit from this decision, assuming that it is not reversed on appeal. f. The losing party position relative to the prevailing party warrants attorneys' fees because the prevailing party are members of the certified classes, whereas the Defendant are part of the huge DuPont corporate empire. Judge Baylson concluded that the rates requested are on the high side; they are not unreasonably high. There has recently been a large increase in the amount of fees charged by lawyers handling complex litigation. He rejected the Defendant's assertion that the Court is bound to award to the Plaintiff the fees charged under the 'community legal services' ('CLS') standard. The Court emphasized that "undertaking, on a contingency basis, major class action litigation against a major American corporation is no easy feat for any lawyer or law firm. Judge Baylson found that the Plaintiff's counsel had worked on this case for almost five years, without getting paid a dime, for very extensive work. However, he rejected the Defendant's arguments in their brief that they presented good faith defenses. It made no company-wide communications as to the reasons for the spinoff or the actual plan for the spinoff. As a result of that, as many witnesses testified at the trial, individuals who later learned that they had been economically prejudiced by the spinoff were still doing the same job in the same office, sitting at the same desk, but in fact their employer had changed, often to their detriment. Judge Baylson characterized the Defendant's opposition as basically a combination of hindsight, sour grapes, nitpicking, and unrealistic afterthoughts in trying to save their clients some of the money that the Plaintiff's counsel deserves. Based on his personal observation of the counsels' performance and preparation over the last several years, he concluded that they have excelled in their representation of their clients and the classes they represent. He accepted the Plaintiffs' representations as to what work was done, how long it took, and what comparable rates are in the marketplace. For these reasons, Judge Baylson determined that the Plaintiff's counsel deserved to be appropriately compensated and that they would also be liable for substantial counsel fees, which are justified by the successes of the Plaintiff's counsel, by the facts of the case, and by the prevailing law. Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiff's petition for attorneys' fees and confirmed the case as a class action. A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rFnhAP DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Bell Remanded to San Diego County Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as DELAINYA BELL, , v. DEVRY UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:24-cv-02464-RSH-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge Robert S. Huie of the United States District Court granted Plaintiff Bell's motion to remand and denied Defendant DeVry University's motion to consolidate. This is a putative wage and hour class action brought by Bell against DeVry University. The plaintiff worked as an Admissions Advisor for the Defendant from October 2023 to August 2024. She alleges that Defendant failed to accurately track the hours she and other class members worked, instead improperly implementing a non-neutral rounding policy that resulted in unpaid minimum and overtime wages and insufficient credit for accrued sick leave. As a result, Defendant also allegedly failed to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with accurate wage statements. Plaintiff claims that she and other class members incurred unreimbursed costs related to being required to work from home. Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes consisting of (1) current and former nonexempt employees who worked for Defendant in California four years prior to the filing of the action through the date of class certification and (2) current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California four years prior to the filing of the action through the date of class certification "who were not properly reimbursed for business expenses." On behalf of a putative class, Plaintiff alleges seven claims for violations of the California Labor Code: (1) failure to pay all wages owed (2) failure to pay all overtime wages (3) paid sick leave violations (4) untimely payment of wages (5) wage statement violations (6) waiting time penalties (7) failure to reimburse business expenses. Plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. She seeks damages for all claims and seeks to represent a second class of employees "who were not properly reimbursed for business expenses." Characterizing the removal as improper under CAFA, Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court. On December 26, 2024, Defendant removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. On March 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed her motion to remand. Defendant filed a response, and Plaintiff filed a reply. On January 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a separate California Private Attorneys General Act action against Defendant in California Superior Court. On May 9, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to consolidate the instant case with the PAGA action. Defendant argues that federal jurisdiction is proper under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Plaintiff contests whether the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied. Upon careful review of the removal calculations, Judge Huie concludes that Defendant has failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA's $5,000,000 jurisdictional threshold. He notes significant differences between Defendant's original Notice of Removal and its Opposition brief calculations. In its Notice of Removal, Defendant asserted the total amount in controversy was at minimum $10,552,636.80 consisting of $2,366,412 in unpaid minimum wages, $2,275,852 in waiting time penalties, $4,151,600 in untimely payment penalties, and $1,758,772.80 in attorneys' fees. In contrast, in its Opposition, Defendant asserted the total amount was at minimum $5,023,066 consisting of $328,638 in unpaid minimum wages, $762,528 in waiting time penalties, $3,231,900 in untimely payment penalties, and $700,000 in attorneys' fees. Judge Huie construes Defendant's Opposition as an amendment to its notice of removal and analyzes the revised calculations. To calculate the total number of possible violations, Defendant submitted the declaration of Gaurav Khurana, Defendant's Vice President, Total Rewards and Human Resources Operations. Mr. Khurana declared Defendant has employed 342 hourly non-exempt employees since November 21, 2020. Defendant assumed a Class Period extending from May 27, 2020 to April 3, 2025, estimating 64,638 workweeks based on the assumption that 342 employees worked for 75% of all possible workweeks. Defendant next contends that even if the Court lacks CAFA jurisdiction over the instant case, the Court can retain supplemental jurisdiction of the instant dispute in light of the separately filed DeVry II case. Judge Huie rejects this argument for two reasons. First, supplemental jurisdiction is not the same as original jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot confer a right to removal. As such, even if the Court had jurisdiction over DeVry II, Defendant could not invoke supplemental jurisdiction as a basis for the instant case's removal. Second, the supplemental jurisdiction statute does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over free-standing state law claims that are related to a separate action over which the court has jurisdiction. Judge Huie finds that Defendant could have calculated the actual number of workweeks at issue by referring to its payroll records for the hire and termination dates of its non-exempt employees but provides no explanation for why it did not take this step. In wage-and-hour cases, "the number of employees in the class may be most easily determined by examining the defendant's employment records." By assuming that the same number of employees worked throughout the Class Period when Defendant had access to accurate numbers, Defendant made an assumption not grounded in real evidence. Defendant argued that the Court could use supplemental jurisdiction to retain the current case (the wage and hour class action) based on the separate PAGA case that was also in federal court. First, supplemental jurisdiction is not the same as original jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot confer a right to removal. Second, the supplemental jurisdiction statute does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over free-standing state law claims that are related to a separate action over which the court has jurisdiction. Therefore, Judge Huie holds Defendant has not met its burden of proving that the amount of controversy requirement has been satisfied. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Defendant's motion to consolidate is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Mlg3G DOORDASH INC: Morris Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action suit captioned as ANTONIO MORRIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DOORDASH, INC., Case No. 2025CH05690 (Filed May 28, 2025), was removed from removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 30, 2026. The Plaintiff seeks to assert claims on behalf of himself and a putative class under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Plaintiff Morris alleges that DoorDash retained and disclosed biometric information from delivery drivers (Dashers) who contracted with DoorDash, without following certain procedures required by BIPA. The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of herself [sic] and all members of the following Rule 23 class, which the Complaint defines as all Illinois residents who had their biometric information collected by Defendant at any point in the five years preceding the filing of this Complaint. DoorDash is an American company operating online food ordering and food delivery.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael K. Forde, Esq. Brian P. O'Meara, Esq. FORDE & O'MEARA LLP 191 North Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 641-1441 E-mail: mforde@fordellp.com bomeara@fordellp.com - and - Michael Holecek, Esq. Elizabeth McCloskey, Esq. Sean Howell, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: mholecek@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com showell@gibsondunn.com DOYON LIMITED: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Goebel Says --------------------------------------------------------- CONAN GOEBEL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOYON, LIMITED, Case No. 4:25-cv-00021-SLG (D. Alaska, June 23, 2025) alleges that Doyon failed to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's information network, including full names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth and Shareholder ID (protected health information, PHI and personally identifiable information, PII). The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on April 2, 2024, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII which was being kept unprotected (the Data Breach). The Plaintiff is an adult individual and, at all relevant times herein, was a resident and citizen of the State of Washington. Representative Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach. The Defendant received highly sensitive PHI/PII from Representative Plaintiff in connection with the services Representative Plaintiff requested. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's information was among the data accessed by an unauthorized third party in the Data Breach, says the suit. Doyon is a private landowner in Alaska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE Web: www.colevannote.com 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Parrillo Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- MILDRED PARRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPISOURCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05504 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, and violations of California Unfair Competition Law and California Consumer Privacy Act. 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 on or about January 27, 2025, through February 6, 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. Episource, LLC is a software company based in Gardena, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: dperry@masonllp.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Ave. Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com EYEMART EXPRESS: Rand's Amended Privacy Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as RACHELLE RAND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EYEMART EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-621-N (N.D. Tex.), Judge David C. Godbey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted Eyemart's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs are five Meta (formerly Facebook) users who accessed the Eyemart website to search for prescription eyewear products and to search for eye doctors in their areas. Eyemart operates a retail website and a chain of physical stores where customers may browse for eyewear, both prescription and non-prescription. Customers may purchase eyewear directly from the site or in store. For an online purchase, when a customer selects eyewear to purchase, the customer is prompted to select the type of lens for the selected frames and, if the customer selects prescription lenses, he or she is then prompted to enter prescription information. The website also offers the ability to locate an eye doctor with whom the customer may schedule an appointment. The website provides links to "online scheduling, phone numbers to call the locations, and addresses to visit the locations" of the eye doctors. Eyemart's website utilizes Meta Pixel technology, which tracks predetermined user interaction "events" on a website, such as when a user clicks a designated button, adds an item to a digital cart, or searches for a location. The Pixel provides anonymized data to the website owner to learn how customers interact with the website. The Pixel also shares the data with Meta in exchange for use of the tool. Meta users who have previously agreed to the Meta Privacy and Cookie Policy have a user identification cookie stored on their device by Meta. This cookie is included in metadata when Pixel events are triggered, attaching a unique identifier to otherwise anonymized data. All five of the named plaintiffs had Facebook accounts and had previously consented to Meta storing a user identification cookie on their devices; therefore, all the metadata collected about their interactions on the website contained a cookie that made it capable of being de-anonymized. Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. They assert violations of the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Missouri Wiretap Act, the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and intrusion upon seclusion. All these claims are premised upon the allegation that Eyemart shared plaintiffs' private health information with Meta. The Court dismissed the first complaint for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs amended the complaint, adding two new named plaintiffs. Eyemart moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court previously granted Eyemart's first motion to dismiss, finding that Rand, Gottshau, and Soto failed to plead facts that plausibly establish that they shared any private health information with Eyemart that could be shared with Meta. In their amended complaint, these plaintiffs added only their subjective intent for visiting the Eyemart website but again failed to plead any actual actions that would have shared any private health information. In the amended complaint, Gottshau and Soto did not amend their factual allegations. Rand adds only that she visited the website with the intent to "purchase prescription eyewear as well as schedule an appointment for an eye exam" and that her visit to the website "resulted in the disclosure of the name and location of the Eyemart location Ms. Rand used to obtain examinations and prescription eyewear from Eyemart." Judge Godbey held that her subjective intent for visiting the website, whether to purchase prescription eyewear or nonprescription sunglasses, does not constitute sharing of private health information. He said the alleged disclosure of the location of the Eyemart store most convenient for Rand to visit and ultimately make her purchases does not constitute any shared private health information. Because these plaintiffs failed to add any material factual allegations that would lead to a different outcome, Judge Godbey found that they failed to plead facts to support their claims. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs added two named plaintiffs, Lash and Mees. Lash and Mees both allege that they purchased prescription eyewear from the Eyemart website, and as part of the ordering process, they "entered their prescription information into the Website." Because they entered prescription information on the Eyemart website, the Court found that these plaintiffs have plausibly established that they shared private health information with Eyemart. Judge Godbey then examined whether these plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that their private health information was unlawfully shared with Meta. Plaintiffs allege that adding an item to a virtual cart triggers an "AddToCart event, which discloses when a Tracked User adds frames and prescription lenses to their cart for purchase." However, they do not sufficiently allege that any private health information is disclosed when the AddToCart event is triggered or that the AddToCart event is triggered differently if prescription or non-prescription lenses are added to the frames. Figures 12 and 13 identify the specific information that is sent to Meta in the AddToCart event: the name of the item, the product ID, the item price, the make and model, the material, and the third-party fulfillment entity. Because nothing in Figure 13 depicts disclosure to Meta of prescription information or that the lenses are prescription lenses, the Court found that this does not sufficiently allege that any private health information was shared with Meta. Therefore, Judge Godbey found that Lash and Mees have not sufficiently alleged that any private health information was disclosed to Meta through the Pixel. Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act: The Federal Electronic Privacy Act is a one-party consent statute. Because plaintiffs failed to plead facts to plausibly establish that any private health information was shared with Meta, there were no facts to support a violation of HIPAA, and the crime-tort exception does not apply. Because the ECPA is a one-party consent statute and Eyemart consented to the tracking on its site, plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the ECPA. As for the Missouri Wiretap Act, the statute is modeled off the ECPA and is similarly a one-party consent statute with a crime-tort exception. Rand, the only Missouri plaintiff, failed to state a claim under this statute for the same reasons plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the ECPA. With respect to the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, Soto, the only named Illinois plaintiff, brought the claim individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Judge Godbey found that Soto did not plausibly plead facts to show he shared any private health information with Eyemart. Therefore, Soto failed to establish that he had any private conversation that could have been intercepted. Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims and intrusion upon seclusion claims are premised upon the disclosure of their private health information. Because plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead facts to show that any private health information was shared with Meta, Judge Godbey held that there is insufficient factual basis to state a claim for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, or intrusion upon seclusion. Judge Godbey found plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for violation of the ECPA, the Missouri or Illinois wiretapping statutes, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, or intrusion upon seclusion. Because plaintiffs have already had an opportunity to replead, he dismissed all claims with prejudice. The motion to dismiss was granted in its entirety. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JvExqH GENERAL MOTORS: Manborde's Bid to Join Speerly Class Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as MARIO A. MANBORDE, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-10522 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V. Parker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Mario A. Manborde's motion to join the class action lawsuit, Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, No. 19-cv-11044 (E.D. Mich.). Plaintiff Mario Manborde filed this action against GM, alleging that GM violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301-2312, and Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Sections 445.901-.922. In his amended complaint, Mr. Manborde states that he purchased a new 2016 Chevrolet Colorado from a Chevrolet dealership in Florida in November 2016. According to him, he experienced issues with the vehicle's transmission, which he claims is a defective product manufactured and sold by GM. He further claims that GM engaged in deceptive practice because it was aware of the defective transmission and sold him the vehicle without disclosing the defect. The document does not explicitly state GM's position regarding the plaintiff's motion, as this ruling focuses on the procedural aspects of the motion to join an existing class action lawsuit. Judge Parker examined Mr. Manborde's motion to join the class action lawsuit against GM that is currently pending before United States District Court Judge David M. Lawson. Mr. Manborde filed the instant motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Rule 23 governs class actions in federal court and outlines the prerequisites for class actions, types of class actions, certification of and notices to class members, settlements, and appeals. Upon careful examination, Judge Parker determined that Rule 23 is not the proper vehicle for Mr. Manborde's request to be added as a class member to a class action lawsuit that is not pending before this Court. She also noted that Mr. Manborde does not meet the criteria for class membership in the Speerly class action. On March 20, 2023, Judge Lawson issued an order certifying the class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). In that order, the court defined the class as individuals who purchased various GM models released from 2015 to 2019 equipped with eight-speed automatic transmissions (i.e., 8L45 and 8L90). With respect to GM's Chevrolet Colorado, the model Mr. Manborde claims he purchased, the court limited the class to include only Chevrolet Colorado models manufactured from 2017 to 2019. According to the Court, Mr. Manborde's complaint involves his purchase of a 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, which falls outside the certified class. It explained that the certified class was limited to Chevrolet Colorado models manufactured from 2017 to 2019, while plaintiff's vehicle was manufactured in 2016. On these facts, Judge Parker did not find any grounds to grant Mr. Manborde's motion. Accordingly, it ordered that Mr. Manborde's motion to join a pending class action lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is denied. Therefore, she denied plaintiff's motion to add plaintiff to class action lawsuit, finding that the proper procedural vehicle was not used and that plaintiff does not meet the criteria for class membership in the existing Speerly class action due to the year of manufacture of his vehicle falling outside the certified class parameters. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HvdrR7 GENERAL MOTORS: Sells Vehicles With Engine Defect, Muhammad Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD and JEREMY MISKELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11816-JJCG-KGA (E.D. Pa., June 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for fraudulent concealment and omission, negligent misrepresentation/omission, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty, and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the California Song-Beverly Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of vehicles with alleged defect in the L87 6.2L V8 engine. According to the complaint, the defect results from internal mechanical failures that cause severe internal damage, excess oil consumption, loss of engine power, and, in many cases, complete engine failure. In late April 2025, the Defendant issued a recall for nearly 600,000 of the Class vehicle models because of the defect. As a result of the Defendant's omissions and concealment, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. General Motors LLC is an automobile manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 917 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 Email: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, Suite 600 Ridgefield, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 679-8656 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: rmr@classlawgroup.com rlm@classlawgroup.com - and - Brian E. Johnson, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 211 N. Union St., Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: bej@classlawgroup.com GOOGLE LLC: Charges Customers for Alleged Ads, PVC Fence Says ------------------------------------------------------------- PVC FENCE WHOLESALE, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-05480 (N.D. Cal., June 30, 2025) arises from Google's unlawful practice of charging its customers for alleged advertising about which Google refuses to disclose any details other than the amount charged. Accordingly, Google hides from its customers the data necessary to determine if they are paying for the advertising the customers purchased, let alone if they are receiving any resulting advertising benefit for the monies they pay to Google. Google's advertising program, previously known as Google AdWords and recently rebranded as Google Ads, purports to allow customers to pick the precise words and phrases -- known as keywords -- that will cause a customer's ad to display in a Google search. This service, often referred to as pay-per-click advertising, is essentially the only effective way for a business to advertise online as Google, a monopoly, dominates the search engine market with a market share of over 90%. Google provides its customers with detailed reports that displays what one would think would be each and every keyword for which the customer agreed to pay, and Google charges for every click. However, an average of 28%1 or more of a customer’s monthly charges -- and for the instant Plaintiff almost 38% of their Ad Words Campaign charges -- are categorized by Google under the unclear and opaque moniker "other search terms" for which Plaintiff has no idea what it paid for and Google does not -- and refuses to -- provide any details, the suit says. Google is an American multinational corporation and technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415/288-4545 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com pgeller@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Marc A. Wites, Esq. Michele M. Desoer, Esq. WITES & ROGERS, P.A. 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (954) 933-4400 E-mail: mwites@witeslaw.com mdesoer@witeslaw.com HOMARY INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Filing in Lawyer Due Feb. 20, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAILA LAWYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HOMARY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Case No. 4:24-cv-04113-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order re class discovery deadlines and briefing schedule for class certification motion. The Parties will adhere to the following deadlines: (1) Discovery on issues related to class certification shall close on Feb. 1, 2026. (2) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by Feb. 20, 2026. (3) The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by April 6, 2026. (4) The Plaintiff's reply to the motion for class certification shall be filed by May 21, 2026. (5) The Court will hold a hearing on the motion for class certification on June 4, 2026 at 2 p.m. Homary is an international home furnishings online platform. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uJd7xP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Erica R. Graves, Esq. Ping Zhang, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East | 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3400 Facsimile: (424) 239-3434 E-mail: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com erica.graves@blankrome.com ping.zhang@blankrome.com HTLC VENTURES: Zachman Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY ZACHMAN and ALISON ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. HTLC VENTURES INC., a Florida limited liability company d/b/a HOLLERBACH'S GERMAN RESTAURANT and d/b/a WILLOW TREE CAFÉ, CHRISTINA M. HOLLERBACH, an individual, LINDA M. HOLLERBACH, an individual, and THEODOR R. HOLLERERBACH a/k/a THEO HOLLERBACH, an individual, Case No. 6:25-cv-00275-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Granting the Motion to certify a Rule 23 class and FLSA collective action; 2. Directing the Defendants to produce within ten (10) calendar days of the order certifying the class a complete list in an electronic and importable format, such as Excel, of the names, last known addresses, cell phone numbers, dates of birth, email addresses, and dates of employment of each class member; 3. Authorizing issuance of the proposed Notices (Exhibits 6 and 7) to potential FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs and putative FMWA class members be sent by mail, email, and text, allow a reminder text and email after 30 days, set a 60 day deadline to opt into the FLSA collective and opt out of the FMWA class, and find that such notice is fair, reasonable, adequate, and consistent with due process; 4. Appointing Brittany Zachman and Alison Allen as class representatives and the firm of Bober & Bober, P.A. as class counsel; 5. Permitting the Plaintiffs to utilize the services of a third- party administrator for the purposes of disseminating class notice, if needed; and 6. Granting such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. On Feb. 19, 2025, the Plaintiffs, who were formerly employed as restaurant servers, filed a Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (collectively "FMWA"). On June 20, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs allege Defendants took a tip credit and paid servers and bartenders a subminimum wage but failed to follow all the legal requirements for taking a tip credit. Hollerbach's offers a traditional German experience complete with authentic food, drinks and entertainment A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FksjX8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samara Robbins Bober, Esq. Peter J. Bober, Esq. BOBER & BOBER, P.A. 4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 555-S Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 922-2298 E-mail: peter@boberlaw.com samara@boberlaw.com HUNGRY POT: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Cao Suit Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENGTAO CAO a/k/a PHILLIP CAO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HUNGRY POT DARMOUTH INC., HUAXIN CHEN, HONG AN ZHENG, YI PING ZHENG, SHUO CHEN, and LEO DOE, Case No. 1:24-cv-11797-JEK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Julia E. Kobick entered an order denying the defendants' motion to strike class allegations and dismiss collective action allegations. The motion will be denied, because Cao has plausibly alleged the existence of putative class and collective members whose claims could be resolved on a classwide basis. The defendants' concerns about the breadth of the proposed collective and classes are premature and may be more appropriately raised after Cao has moved for class or collective certification The case is a putative collective and class action lawsuit alleging that defendant Hungry Pot Dartmouth Inc, and its leadership team failed to pay minimum wage and overtime to certain employees and unlawfully retained their tips. The Plaintiff claims that the defendants' actions violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Massachusetts' minimum wage and overtime laws; and the Tips Act.He seeks to represent a collective for the FLSA claims, and two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for the state law claims, composed of Hungry Pot employees who, like him, were allegedly undercompensated. Between April 17 and April 23, 2024, the plaintiff Cao worked 72.2 hours as a server at Hungry Pot. Hungry is a Korean barbecue, hot pot, and all-you-can-eat restaurant. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aelHla at no extra charge.[CC] IHG MANAGEMENT: Amended Bid to Certify Class Action Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MARTINEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IHG MANAGEMENT (MARYLAND) LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-00210-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's amended motion to certify class action is denied as moot without prejudice to refiling. 2. The parties shall file a joint status report no later than July 23, 2025, and then every 60 days thereafter until an order on the preliminary settlement approval motion is issued in Martinez II. 3. No later than ten business days after the filing of the order on the Martinez II preliminary settlement approval motion, the parties shall either file a dismissal of this action or a joint proposal how to proceed. On Oct. 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended motion to certify class action, which the Defendants opposed. On April 15, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to stay pending the outcome of a settlement approval motion to be filed in Martinez v. IHG Management (Maryland), LLC, San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2024- 00008501-CU-OE-CTL -- a related class action pending in state court. On June 13, 2025, the parties reported that the motion for preliminary approval of settlement would be filed in Martinez II by June 27, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5nMNeu at no extra charge.[CC] INSIGHT GLOBAL: Paul Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WISLINE PAUL, JASMINE MCDOWELL, DAWN MAXFIELD, and MELINA TSILFOGLOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02679-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- granting their motion for conditional certification and authorizing the Plaintiffs to issue the proposed notice and opt-in form; -- approving the form and content of Plaintiff’s proposed notice; and -- directing Insight Global to produce to Plaintiffs' Counsel the contact information (including the name, address, email address, telephone number, and dates of employment) for each collective action member in a usable electronic format. The Plaintiffs Wisline Paul, Jasmine McDowell, Dawn Maxfield, and Melina Tsilfoglou have filed the instant case alleging that they and other similarly situated consultants were improperly classified by the Defendant as exempt employees, and, as a result, did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Specifically, the Plaintiffs seeks conditional certification of the following collective: "All individuals who worked for Insight Global providing training and support to Insight Global's clients in connection with the implementation of electronic recordkeeping systems in Florida from May 2022 to the present and who did not receive overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week ("FLSA Collective")." Insight provides information technology educational services to medical facilities across the country. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SCGr6F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Olena Savytska, Esq. Harold Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: osavytska@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com - and - Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2901 Dobbs Ave Nashville, TN 37211 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 E-mail: mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - John L. Mays, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404)873-8000 E-mail: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com JEWISH VOICE: Parties Seek Order Correcting Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL FAORO, v. JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00289-ABJ (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order correcting the briefing schedule entered on June 20, 2025 to reflect that the Plaintiff's response to the Defendants' motions to dismiss will be due July 30, 2025. On June 18, 2025, the Defendant and the Plaintiff filed a joint motion for entry of an agreed briefing schedule on the Defendants' pending motions to dismiss. The joint motion unfortunately included a mistake as regards the briefing schedule that the parties negotiated. The motion requested a due date for the Plaintiff's response of Aug. 14. The correct date that the parties agreed to was July 30. 3. Counsel for the Defendant drafted the motion, takes responsibility for the error, and apologizes for the inconvenience. Jewish is an American Jewish anti-Zionist and left-wing advocacy organization. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UxSSJA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna St. John, Esq. Neville S. Hedley, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (917) 327-2392 E-mail: anna.stjohn@hlli.org ned.hedley@hlli.org The Defendants are represented by: Nora Snyder, Esq. Brad J. Thomson, Esq. PEOPLE'S LAW OFFICE 1180 N. Milwaukee Avenue Chicago, IL 60642 Telephone: (773) 235-0070 E-mail: norasnyder@peopleslawoffice.com brad@peopleslawoffice.com - and - Hanna Chandoo, Esq. Dan Stormer, Esq. Bina Ahmad, Esq. HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI, LLP 128 N Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 E-mail: hchandoo@hadsellstormer.com dstormer@hadsellstormer.com bahmad@hadsellstormer.com - and - Lynne Bernabei, Esq. Alan R. Kabat, Esq. BERNABEI & KABAT, PLLC 1400 – 16th Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202)745-1942 E-mail: bernabei@bernabeipllc.com kabat@bernabeipllc.com KBR INC: Sadler Sues Over Termination Without Prior Notice ---------------------------------------------------------- PETER SADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KBR, INC. f/k/a KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT (HOUSTON), INC. and HOMESAFE ALLIANCE LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00802-UNA (D. Del., June 30, 2025) is a class action complaint against Defendants seeking all available relief under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), and Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Class were, until recently, employees of Defendants, who were terminated by the Defendants without cause through its abrupt plant closure on June 27, 2025. In conducting the plant closure, the Defendants failed to give Plaintiff and Class Members at least 60 days prior notice of termination of their employment violating the WARN Act. The Plaintiff and class contend that they are entitled to recover from the Defendants their wages and other employee benefits for 60 working days following the termination of their employment, for which wages and benefits have not been paid. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from on or about March 2025 until his termination on June 27, 2025. He was a full-time employee. During his tenure, Plaintiff worked as a Customer Experience Manager and was paid an annual salary of $90,000. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit individually and as a class action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 2104(a)(5) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of: "All former employees of Defendants who performed work in the United States and who were terminated through the Defendants' plant closing on or about June 27, 2025." KBR is a global company with over 29,000 employees that provides science, technology, and engineering solutions to governments and private companies around the world. HomeSafe, is a joint venture led by KBR, that is "dedicated to providing fast, easy, efficient relocation" services to members of the United States Armed Forces, Department of Defense civilians and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 800 N. West Street, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 691-9545 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Michael J. Anderson, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net crodriguez@bm.net manderson@bm.net apiazza@bm.net LIFECELL SUPPLEMENTS: Fagnani Sues Over Website's Access Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFECELL SUPPLEMENTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05109 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 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.lifecellskin.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. Lifecell Supplements 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 LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting sixth joint stipulation modifying class certification schedule. The motion for class certification hearing, previously scheduled for Oct. 21, 2025, will be conducted via Zoom at 1:30 p.m. on January 6, 2026, and the briefing schedule shall be as follows: 1. Motion for Class Certification is due by Sept. 2, 2025. 2. Responses are due by September 30, 2025. 3. Replies are due by October 21, 2025. Little is an American multinational chain of pizza restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KuQukq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com - and - Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com LV CONTRACTING: Moises Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN MOISES v. LV CONTRACTING SOLUTIONS INC. and ASRAB ALI KHAN, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-03619 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2025) is a class action suit on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Complaint seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage compensation for Plaintiff, a former employee of the Defendant. The Plaintiff was hired directly by Defendant Asrab Ali Khan, who set his work schedule and consistently gave him daily orders and instructions regarding his duties. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully failed to pay the required wages. The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a construction helper, he did plumbing, carpentry, and any other task assigned to him under the direct supervision and control of Defendant Asrab Ali Khan. Accordingly, the Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week, says the suit. LV CONTRACTING SOLUTIONS INC. is a construction company based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone (212) 203-2417 MDL 1871: Court Certifies Class in Avandia Liability Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the motion for class certification in the case captioned as IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 1871, Case No. 07-md-1871 (E.D. Pa.). The Plaintiffs, Third Party Payors United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 and Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund and J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. (collectively, "the Plans"), filed suits against Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC ("GSK") alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various state consumer protection laws in connection with the marketing of the diabetes drug Avandia. These actions were incorporated into the In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Multi-District Litigation ("MDL"). The Plans alleged that GSK engaged in deceptive marketing practices by failing to disclose information contradicting the purported cardiovascular benefits of Avandia, Avandamet, and Avandaryl (collectively, "Avandia") as compared to other available medications. The Plans further allege that, had they been given this information prior to 2007, they would not have included Avandia on their formularies and would not have paid a higher premium for Avandia prescriptions over other diabetes drugs. The Plans moved for class certification to certify the following class of third-party payers ("TPPs") who allege injury arising from the alleged fraudulent marketing by GSK: All entities in the United States and its territories, which indirectly purchased, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for the drugs Avandia, Avandamet, and/or Avandaryl from May 25, 1999 until August 14, 2007. They proposed UFCW Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health & Welfare Fund and J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc. serve as the class representatives. On March 12, 2025, the Court heard argument on the Plans' motion for class certification. At oral argument, the Plans conceded that the class should be redefined to only include claims from January 1, 2005 through August 14, 2007. For class certification to be granted, The Plans must first demonstrate that the four elements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy—have been met. In addition, the elements of Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3) must be satisfied before a class can be certified. Judge Rufe held that the Plans have met their burden of satisfying the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a): The Plans provided data from IQVIA and GSK showing thousands of entities that purchased or reimbursed Avandia, making joinder impracticable; they demonstrated common questions of law and fact, as GSK's alleged fraudulent marketing strategy uniformly impacted all class members; their claims were typical of the class, as GSK's market-wide fraud allegedly injured all TPPs similarly; and the proposed class representatives, UFCW Local 1776 and J.B. Hunt, had sufficient knowledge of the case, participated extensively in discovery, and had no conflicts of interest. Their counsel was also deemed adequate. As the Plans meet the requirements under Rule 23(a) for class certification, Judge Rufe next turned to Rule 23(b). A class action must also satisfy at least one of the three requirements listed in Rule 23(b). She evaluated the Plans' compliance with Rule 23(b)(3), focusing on predominance, superiority, and ascertainability. Judge Rufe that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual issues; RICO injury occurs at the time of purchase, not requiring aggregate loss; GSK's oral representations by sales representatives were sufficiently uniform, based on scripted messages and standardized training; class treatment was superior due to the large number of potential class members; and the class is ascertainable, as it was defined with objective criteria (entities that purchased or reimbursed Avandia) and supported by a reliable, administratively feasible mechanism. The Plans' methodology, supported by Mr. Fischer's declaration identifying thousands of TPPs with over $200 million in transactions, also satisfied ascertainability requirements. Thomas M. Sobol, Erin C. Burns, and James R. Dugan are appointed as the class counsel. Judge Ruse found adequate under Rule 23(g). She said they had performed extensive work, had experience in similar cases, and committed significant resources to the litigation. For the reasons she stated, Judge Rufe granted the Plans' motion for class certification in part as to claims beginning January 1, 2005, until August 14, 2007, and denied in part as to claims before January 1, 2005. She ordered the appointment of the proposed class counsel and directed that an order be entered to formalize the ruling. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j86RQ6 META PLATFORMS: Court Says AI Training Is Fair Use -------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vince Chhabria of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted Meta Platforms, Inc.'s cross-motion for partial summary judgment in the case captioned as RICHARD KADREY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-03417-VC (N.D. Cal.). The court held that Meta's use of the plaintiffs' copyrighted books to train its large language models (Llama) constituted fair use, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim of direct copyright infringement based on reproduction. The ruling does not address the plaintiffs' claim of infringement by distribution, which remains a live issue, and a separate order will address the plaintiffs' Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claim. The court described generative artificial intelligence (AI) models as software capable of generating text, images, videos, or sound based on materials they are trained on. Generative AI models do this, as Meta describes it, by extracting "increasingly complex mathematical patterns from training data, enabling the network to output a prediction or decision based on the patterns derived." Meta Platforms, Inc. operates social media services and develops Llama, a series of large language models (LLMs) designed to understand and generate text. Meta released Llama 1 in February 2023 and Llama 2 that July. Llama 3 -- along with Meta AI, an easily accessible AI chatbot (analogous to ChatGPT) that incorporates Llama 3 -- was released in April 2024. To train these models, Meta used diverse datasets, including books from shadow libraries like Library Genesis (LibGen) and Anna's Archive. Meta torrented LibGen and Anna's Archive. Meta added the books it downloaded to the datasets it used to train the Llama models. The plaintiffs are 13 published authors including Sarah Silverman and Junot Díaz. They hold copyrights in various works, primarily novels, but also memoirs, plays, and nonfiction. All of the books in which the plaintiffs hold copyright can be found in the datasets Meta downloaded, including both Books3 and the Anna's Archive databases. Meta downloaded at least 666 copies of these works without permission. Meta decided to just use the works acquired from LibGen as training data. Meta abandoned its licensing efforts. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging direct copyright infringement based on Meta's reproduction of their books, along with claims for vicarious infringement, DMCA violations, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and negligence. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all owners of copyrighted works used as training data for Llama. All claims except direct copyright infringement and a later-added DMCA claim were dismissed early on. The plaintiffs later amended their complaint to include a claim of infringement by distribution, alleging Meta reuploaded their works via torrenting. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that they had made out a facial claim for copyright infringement and that Meta's fair use defense could not possibly apply. Meta conceded the facial infringement but countered with a cross-motion, asserting fair use. Meta opposed the plaintiffs’ motion -- and filed its own cross-motion. The plaintiffs presented two main theories of market harm: first, that Llama could reproduce snippets of their books, substituting for the originals; second, that Meta's actions harmed the market for licensing their works for AI training. They briefly referenced a third theory -- market dilution from AI-generated works -- but provided minimal evidence. Meta argued that its use was transformative, creating a tool with a different purpose than the plaintiffs' books. The purpose of Meta's copying was to train its LLMs, which are innovative tools that can be used to generate diverse text and perform a wide range of functions. Meta presented its own expert testimony explaining that Llama 3's release did not have any discernible effect on the plaintiffs' sales. Court Findings Upon careful examination, the court analyzed the fair use doctrine under the four factors in 17 U.S.C. Section 107. 1. Purpose and Character of the Use The court found this factor favored Meta. The court said, "There is no serious question that Meta's use of the plaintiffs' books had a 'further purpose' and 'different character' than the books -- that it was highly transformative. Meta's copying aimed to train LLMs for diverse functions, unlike the books' purpose of entertainment or education. The commercial nature of Meta's use and its downloading from shadow libraries were relevant but not dispositive. The fact that Llama may make Meta many billions of dollars is relevant. . . but does not tilt the first factor in the plaintiffs' favor." 2. Nature of the Copyrighted Work The court said this factor favored the plaintiffs, as their works were highly expressive. "Their books -- mostly novels, memoirs, and plays -- are highly expressive works 'of the type that the copyright laws value and seek to protect.'" However, the court noted this factor's limited weight. The second factor, however, "has rarely played a significant role in the determination of a fair use dispute," according to the court. 3. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used The court found this factor favored Meta, despite copying entire books. "The amount that Meta copied was reasonable given its relationship to Meta's transformative purpose," the court held. Copying entire works was necessary for effective LLM training. It was "reasonably necessary" for Meta to "make use of the entirety of the works." 4. Effect on the Market According to the court, "The fourth factor is 'undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use.'" The plaintiffs' first theory failed because Llama could not reproduce significant portions of their books. Llama does not allow users to generate any meaningful portion of the plaintiffs' books. The second theory, harm to the licensing market, was invalid. "This market is not one that the plaintiffs are legally entitled to monopolize." The third theory, market dilution, was promising but unsupported. "The plaintiffs presented no empirical evidence... that the copying has already caused market harm, and no evidence that the copying is likely to cause market harm in the future." Meta's evidence showed no discernible impact on sales. "Meta introduced evidence that its copying hasn't caused market harm." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RBfHKH NIP & TUCK PLASTIC: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nip & Tuck Plastic Surgery, LLC. The case is styled as Ethan Radvansky, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Nip & Tuck Plastic Surgery, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03502-MLB (N.D. Ga., June 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Nip & Tuck Plastic Surgery is a medical group practice located in Atlanta, Georgia that specializes in Cosmetic, Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 955-7732 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: $508K in Fees & Costs Recommended in Rzepkoski ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DR. TERRY RZEPKOSKI and KRISTEN ASSELTA, on behalf of Nova University Defined Contribution Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-61147-WPD (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida recommended the approval of the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The matter constitutes a certified class action lawsuit. The parties stipulated to class certification on June 20, 2024. The Court approved the stipulation on June 25, 2024. The following class was certified: All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between June 15, 2016, and the present (the Class Period.)" The Settlement Class Administrator sent the Court-approved Notice of Settlement to all 12,239 Settlement Class Members on November 29, 2024, with an estimated 97.76% of class members receiving notice. The Court granted final approval of the Parties' class action settlement on March 11, 2025, following a final fairness hearing held on January 21, 2025. By way of background, on October 24, 2024, it issued an Order preliminarily approving the Class Action Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff, on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Defendant. The settlement provides for a monetary payment of $1,500,000 as compensation to the Settlement Class. The Court noted that not a single objection was made during the objection deadline that expired on January 29, 2025. The case involved complex ERISA fiduciary-breach claims spanning nearly 2.5 years of litigation. The Class Counsel undertook the class action without guarantee of payment and, despite significant hurdles, achieved an excellent result on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Class by securing a gross common fund from the Defendant totaling $1,500,000. The litigation included substantial motion practice, with a defense motion for summary judgment, a Rule 56(d) motion to deny defendant's summary judgment as premature, and a motion for protective order filed by Defendant that was denied and appealed to the Court. Before filing the lawsuit, the Class Counsel conducted significant in-depth research and analysis into the Plaintiffs' claims and the anticipated defenses of those claims, which included (1) the Plan's committee charter, (2) investment policy statement, (3) plan document and summary plan description, (4) committee meeting minutes, (5) investment advisor reports, (6) recordkeeper reports, and (7) the Plaintiffs' account statements and other documents. The Class Counsel carefully scrutinized all of the documents produced. The administrative review process was extensive, as during the course of the administrative remedies process, Defendant produced over one-hundred thousand pages of documents relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. It concluded on April 5, 2023, after which Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on May 5, 2023. The litigation involved significant procedural battles. The Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on June 21, 2023, which the Court denied on September 25, 2023. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a motion for protective order seeking to effectively prevent the Plaintiffs from taking any discovery in the case and to limit the evidentiary record in the case only to the documents it produced in the administrative review process. It was denied on January 19, 2024. The Defendant appealed that order denying its motion for a protective order on February 2, 2024, but the appeal was denied on April 12, 2024. The settlement required compliance with regulatory requirements. It provides that Fiduciary Counselors Inc., which has no relationship to any of the parties, will serve as an Independent Fiduciary to review the Settlement. Fiduciary Counselors concluded that the Settlement terms, including the scope of the release of claims, the amount of cash received by the Plan and the amount of any attorneys' fee award or any other sums to be paid from the recovery, are reasonable in light of the Plan's likelihood of full recovery, the risks and costs of litigation, and the value of claims forgone. Magistrate Judge Hunt applied the percentage-of-fund method, noting that "attorneys' fees awarded from a common fund shall be based upon a reasonable percentage of the fund established for the benefit of the class. The Plaintiffs' counsel requested "attorneys' fees in the amount of $500,000, which is equal to 33.3% percent of the Settlement Fund," along with "litigation costs totaling $8,051.35." Magistrate Judge Hunt determined that the amount of fees and costs sought total one third of the Settlement common fund. One-third of a common fund is in line with fees generally awarded in class action cases, and for settlements of this amount and is reasonable and should be awarded. Regarding litigation costs, Magistrate Judge Hunt found that the Class Counsel seek $8,051.35 in reimbursable costs and noted that courts typically allow counsel to recover their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. He determined that the costs sought are reasonable and should be awarded from the common fund. For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Hunt concluded that the amount of fees and costs sought here total one third of the Settlement common fund. One-third of a common fund is in line with fees generally awarded in class action cases. Accordingly, he recommended that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs be approved. He advised that a party has 14 days from the date of his Report and Recommendation to file written objections to its factual findings and legal conclusions. Any response shall be filed within three days of the objections. A copy of the Court's Report and Recommendation decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hlxTyc OGEE INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ Mykayla Fagnani, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. OGEE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05194 (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://ogee.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. OGEE, INC., operates the Ogee online retail store, as well as the Ogee 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 OPENAI INC: Bid for Broad Cross-Use of CIR Docs Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04872 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order denying OpenAI's request for broad cross-use of the Plaintiffs' documents and depositions. The parties are directed to meet and confer on OpenAI's AEO designations and inform the Court how they have elected to proceed by June 30, 2025. The parties are directed to begin finalizing and to submit a finalized deposition protocol and omnibus protective order for the Court's review by July 7, 2025. OpenAI asserts, in conclusory fashion, that absent broad, unfettered cross-use of Plaintiffs' documents, "[f]or the reasons discussed in OpenAI's supplemental letter regarding the Deposition Protocol," OpenAI "will have to litigate the cases individually, for example, filing separate motions on common issues" that the MDL Court could otherwise address at once. Notwithstanding OpenAI's failure to articulate ripe issues, the Court has reviewed ECF 223—which discusses OpenAI's arguments about deposition protocol disputes—but finds only the same speculative and conclusory arguments for the cross-use of Plaintiffs' depositions. The Plaintiffs assert that OpenAI used their copyrighted material to train their LLMs, and OpenAI has not articulated why one Plaintiff's documents are relevant to OpenAI's defenses in another case brought by a different Plaintiff. OpenAI operates as an investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ABtnjE at no extra charge.[CC] PALMDALE GLASS & MIRROR: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PALMDALE GLASS & MIRROR CO. The case is styled as William J. Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PALMDALE GLASS & MIRROR CO., Case No. 25STCV17791 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Palmdale Glass & Mirror Co. -- https://www.palmdaleglass.com/ -- offers residential and commercial glass windows, mirrors, and shower doors, as well as provides installation and repairs services.[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 PALMDALE GLASS: Plaintiff Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against PALMDALE GLASS & MIRROR CO. The case is styled as Plaintiff No. 1, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PALMDALE GLASS & MIRROR CO., Case No. 1:25-cv-01028-ZNS (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl., June 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay – FLSA for the Tucker Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Rosenthal, Esq. JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C. 1629 K Street, N.W., Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 496-0500 Fax: (202) 496-0555 Email: dmrosenthal@jamhoff.com PARK AVENUE LEATHER: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Derrick Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Park Avenue Leather Goods, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03458 (E.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 services Outerknown provides to their non-disabled customers through https://tanthony.com (hereinafter "Tanthony.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its 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 Defendant's website, Tanthony.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 Park Avenue Leather Goods' 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 his computer. Outerknown provides to the public a website known as Outerknown.com which provides consumers with access to an array of clothes and accessories which Defendant offers in connection with their physical location.[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 PENSKE MEDIA: Faces Krivin Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions ----------------------------------------------------------- MOSS KRIVIN, KIM GALLAGHER, ERIC HUEG, and BEVERLY PENNINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENSKE MEDIA CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-05803 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated against PMC for breach of contract and violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, for refusing to fulfill lifetime subscriptions to Rolling Stone magazine that Plaintiffs and the class member purchased. Accordingly, in order to boost its circulation, and therefore bolster its advertising revenue, in the early 2000's -- from at least August 2003 through July 2005 -- Rolling Stone advertised and offered "lifetime" subscriptions to the magazine. For $99, subscribers were promised printed copies of every published Rolling Stone magazine delivered to their homes for their entire lives. For example, one advertisement stated, "The longer you live, the more you screw us over." The Plaintiffs and other Class members accepted Rolling Stone's offer, paid the requisite sums, and, thereby, formed valid binding contracts for lifetime subscriptions to Rolling Stone magazine. And, for at least two decades, the Plaintiffs and other Class members did receive print copies of each issue of the magazine. The mailing labels affixed to the magazine documented and verified their lifetime subscription status. In May 2024, however, the Defendant announced that it will no longer comply with its lifetime subscription contracts. Even though Rolling Stone magazine continues to be published and mailed to all other subscribers, PMC announced that it will no longer deliver printed copies of the magazine to its lifetime subscribers. Instead, PMC will provide them only an "e-Edition" of the magazine, which is essentially like a PDF of the magazine, thereby depriving them of the primary benefit of the contract to which they are entitled: an actual printed copy of the magazine, says the suit. Founded in 1967, to say that Rolling Stone magazine is iconic is an understatement. Rolling Stone is renowned not just for its coverage of rock music, politics, and pop culture by authors that have included Hunter S. Thompson, Cameron Crowe, and Rob Sheffield, but also for its iconic art and photography by artists that have included Annie Liebowitz, Mark Seliger, Matthew Rolston, Jay Blakesburg, David LaChappelle, Richard Avedon, Herb Ritts, Baron Wolman, and others. PMC is an American mass media, publishing, and information services company based in Los Angeles and New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. Kolin C. Tang, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com kctang@millershah.com - and - Timothy N. Mathews, Esq. Zachary P. Beatty, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: tnm@chimicles.com zpb@chimicles.com PRIORITY WASTE: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Andre Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRIORITY WASTE LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11867-RJW-KGA (E.D. Mich., June 20, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Although 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. At all relevant times, Priority Waste 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, Priority Waste's regular practice--including during weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members worked and recorded hours in excess of 40 (not even counting hours worked "off-the-clock")--was (and is) to deduct a 30-minute meal-period from Plaintiff' and the Putative Collective Members' daily work time even though they regularly performed (and continue to perform) compensable work "off the clock" through their respective meal-period breaks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Priority Waste in Wyandotte, Michigan from October 2023 until October 2024 as a Driver. Priority Waste is a full-service solid waste company providing waste collection, recycling, and disposal services to commercial, industrial, and residential customers throughout Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, 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 carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Jennifer McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 Phone: (248) 542-6300 Facsimile: (248) 542-6301 Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com PV ADVISORS: Partial Claims Drop Pushed in Goldovsky Ponzi Case --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of ALEX GOLDOVSKY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAURICIO J. RAULD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:24-CV-00159-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, recommended that: a. Defendants Timothy B. Gertz and PV Advisors, PLC's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim be granted-in-part and denied-in-part; b. Defendant Wells Fargo, NA's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim be denied. The case arises out of an alleged Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Roy Hill, Eric Shelly, and two entities they controlled—Clean Energy Technology Association, Inc. (CETA) and Freedom Impact Consulting, LLC (FIC). The fraudulent operation lasted over three years and succeeded in raising at least $155 million from over 500 investors nationwide. Hill and CETA claimed to have developed a new technology that combined removal and underground storage of carbon dioxide with enhanced oil and gas production utilizing devices called carbon capture units (CCUs). However, the CCUs did not produce business revenues, and the only CCUs CETA sold were non-working prototypes. The scheme operated through partnerships managed by FIC. FIC registered new partnerships (FIC partnerships) around the end of each quarter, raised new funds from investors, and used the funds to pay quarterly returns to investors in earlier-created partnerships. Each partnership provided investors with a business plan that allegedly contained untrue statements and omissions of material facts. The Plaintiffs sued Gertz and PV Advisors, PLC for: (1) primary violations of the Texas Securities Act, (2) secondary violations of the Texas Securities Act, (3) statutory fraud, (4) common-law fraud, (5) negligent misrepresentation, and (6) knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty. Wells Fargo was sued solely for secondary violations of the Texas Securities Act. The Plaintiffs alleged that Gertz and PV Advisors were members of the Advisory Team for each FIC partnership and that the business plans for the FIC partnerships identified Gertz and PV Advisors as the partnerships' Certified Public Accounts. Beyond providing standard accounting services, Gertz and PV Advisors allegedly appeared on webinars, podcasts, and phone calls to market the FIC partnerships to potential investors. Regarding Wells Fargo, the Plaintiffs contended that the bank ignored suspicious account activity—the large sums of money shuffled in and out of the Hill Trust Account maintained at Wells Fargo's Fairfield branch—despite Wells Fargo's enhanced internal controls aimed at detecting and preventing fraud. Magistrate Judge Gilliland applied the established Rule 12(b)(6) standard, noting that to survive a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint need only include sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. He explained that facial plausibility exists if the alleged facts create a reasonable inference that the movant is liable for the alleged conduct. First, Magistrate Judge Gilliland recommended dismissing the statutory fraud claims against Gertz and PV Advisors, PLC because the disputed transactions only tangentially relate to real estate. He said under Section 27.01(a) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, the transaction must actually affect the conveyance of real estate between the parties and cannot merely be tangentially related or a means of facilitating a conveyance of real estate. He determined that these transactions did not include the actual conveyance of real estate between the parties since the Plaintiffs and other investors purchased limited partnership interests—interests in various FIC partnerships, and limited partnership interests are not real estate. Second, Magistrate Judge Gilliland found that Gertz and PV Advisors are sellers under the Texas Securities Act. The Defendants argued they could not be held liable as sellers, citing cases that interpreted a version of the Act repealed by the Texas Legislature in 2019. However, the current case law interpreting the Act embraces a relatively expansive conception of the term 'seller.' The Act broadly defines 'sell' as any act by which a sale is made, including those who solicit offers to purchase securities by controlling the flow of information to the potential purchaser. Gertz and PV Advisors played a more direct role in the solicitation of the partnership interests, and this conduct amounts to solicitation on their part. Third, for secondary liability claims against all defendants, Magistrate Judge Gilliland applied the four-element test requiring (1) there was a primary violation of the Act (by Hill or Shelly), (2) Defendants had a 'general awareness' of their role in the violation, (3) Defendants gave 'substantial assistance' to the violation, and (4) Defendants intended to deceive Plaintiffs or acted with 'reckless disregard' for the truth or the law. He found that the Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to create a plausible inference that Defendants were subjectively aware that their respective dealings with Hill, Shelly, FIC, and CETA were part of the overall improper scheme. For Wells Fargo, the Plaintiffs' allegations as to its maintenance of Hill's accounts create a plausible inference that Wells Fargo ignored suspicious behavior and red flags involving the accounts and subjectively perceived the risk that its services were contributing to an overall improper scheme. Fourth, Magistrate Judge Gilliland determined that the Plaintiffs specifically detail each misrepresentation and omission contained in the FIC partnership business plans and allege that the statements in the business plans falsely represented that investor funds were used to manufacture and place CCUs under leases with natural gas producers when in fact they were used to pay earlier investors their promised returns. These allegations were sufficient to establish that Gertz and PV Advisors' representations were false when made. Finally, Magistrate Judge Gilliland found that FIC was the managing partner of each FIC partnership and owed fiduciary duties to the partnerships and the other partners. He concluded that the Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to allow the Court to plausibly conclude that Gertz and PV Advisors were aware they were participating in FIC's wrongdoing—here, the breach of FIC's fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and other investors. For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Gilliland recommended denying the motion regarding: (1) primary liability under the Texas Securities Act; (2) secondary liability under the Texas Securities Act; (3) common-law fraud; (4) negligent misrepresentation; and (5) knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty. He also recommended that Wells Fargo's motion as to the Plaintiffs' secondary liability claim under the Texas Securities Act against Wells Fargo be denied. A copy of the Court's decision can be found at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NrFos0 PYRAMID DOWNTOWN: Acosta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against PYRAMID DOWNTOWN BERKELEY MANAGEMENT L.P. The case is styled as Brooke A. Acosta, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. PYRAMID DOWNTOWN BERKELEY MANAGEMENT L.P., Case No. 25CV127298 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Pyramid Global Hospitality -- https://www.pyramidglobal.com/ -- is a leading hotel management company, operating in the US, Caribbean, and Western Europe.[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 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: $3.95M Class Deal in Stewart Gets Prelim Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of Pamela STEWART, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of California, Plaintiffs, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-2043-AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Andrew G. Schopler of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary settlement approval of both the class claims and the PAGA representative action. Plaintiffs ask the Court to: (1) preliminarily approve this class action settlement; (2) conditionally certify the class for settlement purposes; (3) approve the Notice of Class and PAGA Action Settlement; (4) appoint Simpluris, Inc. to administer the settlement and notice process; and (5) schedule a final approval hearing. The motion was unopposed. Defense counsel reserves the right to challenge "Class Counsel's request for fees and costs." The defendant agreed to pay its portion of the associated payroll taxes and pays class members on a pro rata basis depending upon the number of eligible weeks they worked for the defendant during the class period. According to the settlement out Of the $3.95 million proposed gross settlement amount, roughly 5,380 class members are slated to share in an estimated $1.48 million. Their individual allocations will depend on how long they worked for the defendant during the relevant period. If the class members were to share the settlement equally, each would receive roughly $270. The total PAGA payment is $100,000, which is 2.5% of the total settlement. Of that $100,000, the plaintiffs will appropriately pay 75% to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency and 25% to the PAGA members. Judge Schopler found a strong judicial policy that favors settlements, particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned. He assessed whether the parties' proposal is fair, reasonable, and adequate after considering whether the class representatives and counsel adequately represent the class, the parties negotiated the proposal at arm's length, the proposed relief provided for the class is adequate, and the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other. Judge Schopler determined that adequacy is usually presumed in the absence of contrary evidence. There is no evidence to overcome that presumption. Neither the named plaintiffs nor their attorneys are aware of any potential conflicts that exist between themselves and the class. The representative plaintiffs and their counsel have "vigorously" prosecuted this action for more than five years. Therefore, the representation is adequate. In addition, the parties engaged in an arm's-length negotiation. Before drafting this settlement proposal in the aftermath of an all-day mediation, the parties spent the better part of five years sparring at least at an arm's length from each other. There is no evidence that the proposal is the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion among, the negotiating parties. Judge Schopler also determined no indication that plaintiffs' counsel would receive a disproportionate distribution of the settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel's proposed fee is not to exceed 33.33%, or one-third of, the gross settlement amount. This is higher than the Ninth Circuit's 25% benchmark award for attorney fees, but it's still well within the range of percentages which courts have upheld as reasonable in other class action lawsuits. Considering the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, Judge Schopler found the $270-per-person and the proposed method of distributing relief to the class to be fair, and the proposed attorneys' fees, as previously discussed, to be appropriate. Plaintiffs' counsel's proposed fee is "not to exceed" 33.33%, or one-third of, the gross settlement amount. This is higher than the Ninth Circuit's 25% "benchmark award for attorney fees," but it's still "well within the range of percentages that courts have upheld as reasonable in other class action lawsuits." The court assessed whether it "will likely be able to" "certify the class for purposes of judgment on the proposal." Judge Schopler held that the previously certified class and the newly proposed class are functionally identical when considered within the context of the proposed settlement terms. Both include "all" of the "non-exempt" "Patient Service Representatives" who worked for Quest in "California" from September 15, 2015, until this case's resolution. The parties' proposed notice also satisfies each of the requirements. Plaintiffs requested leave to file "a Second Amended Complaint that adds" "derivative rest break claims." Judge Schopler found that amendment requires "good cause." The first set of changes involve allegations that would hold defendant accountable for failure to pay "unpaid premiums for missed rest periods," "failure to provide accurate and complete" "wage statement" information, and "failure to pay those wages on time" or "upon separation of employment." For these reasons, the unopposed motion for preliminary settlement approval of both the class claims and the PAGA representative action is granted. Judge Schopler conditionally certified the following class for settlement purposes only: "All current and former non-exempt Patient Service Representatives of Defendant who were employed at any time in the State of California during the Class Settlement Period." He approved the proposed Notice of Class and PAGA Action Settlement. Pamela Stewart and Zulekha Abdul are appointed as class representatives, Graham S.P. Hollis and Hali M. Anderson of GrahamHollis APC as the class counsel, and Simpluris, Inc., as the settlement administrator. Judge Schopler granted plaintiffs' request for leave to file the second amended complaint. The final approval hearing is set for December 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The parties must meet the following deadlines: a. June 23, 2025: Defendant to Submit Class Data to the Settlement Administrator b. July 14, 2025: Settlement Administrator to Mail the Notice of Settlement to all Class Members c. August 28, 2025: Settlement Class Members to Postmark Any Eligible Workweek or Eligible Pay Period Disputes d. August 28, 2025: Settlement Class Members to Postmark Opt-Out Requests e. August 28, 2025: Settlement Class Members to Postmark Any Written Objections to the Settlement f. November 21, 2025: Settlement Administrator to Provide Class Counsel with Declaration of Due Diligence g. October 21, 2025: Submit Motion for Final Approval, inclusive of information about any undeliverable class notices and claim packets, class members with valid claims, class members who opted out, objections to or comments about the settlement proposal, responses to any objections, any attorneys' fees and costs, the ancillary agreements relating to the representative plaintiffs' individual claims, and the discrepancy between the lengths of the settlement and PAGA class periods h. November 4, 2025: Respond to the Motion for Final Approval i. December 5, 2025: Hearing on Final Approval and Fairness A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lMmvuT RESEARCH TRIANGLE: Schwab Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHILIP SCHWAB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE d/b/a RTI INTERNATIONAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00481 (M.D.N.C., June 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act. The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant on or around May 20, 2025, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the federal WARN Act. Research Triangle Institute, doing business as RTI International, is an independent scientific research institute located in North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy D. Shelton, Esq. DOWLING PLLC 3801 Lake Boone Trail, Suite 260 Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone: (919) 529-3351 Email: tshelton@dowlingfirm.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com RIVERSIDE, CA: Illegally Takes Property Interests, Rashik Says -------------------------------------------------------------- AMMAR RASHIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01501 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sec. 19 of the California Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, Sec. 7 of the California Constitution, unjust enrichment, money had and received, inverse condemnation, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's unconstitutional practice of taking the Plaintiff's and Class members' protected property interests for public use without providing just compensation or due process. The Defendant did not-and, as a practice, do not-compensate the Plaintiff or Class members for its takings of such interest or the use of the Plaintiff's and Class members' funds during the year(s) it held the excess proceeds in trust. Indeed, the Defendant provided no process for the Plaintiff or Class members to claim (or even determine or calculate) the actual, statutory, or constructive interest on the principal to which they are entitled. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and a class of property owners have suffered, and will continue to suffer. County of Riverside is a municipal corporation in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luke Landers, Esq. Thomas Q. Swanson, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 27001 Agoura Road, Suite 350 Calabasas, CA 91301 Telephone: (310) 692-8385 1320 Lincoln Mall, Suite 200 Lincoln, NE 68508 Telephone: (402) 395-4469 Email: llanders@hilgersgraben.com tswanson@hilgersgraben.com RIVIANA FOODS: Scott Sues Over Heavy Metals' Presence on Grain Rice ------------------------------------------------------------------- EVERETT SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVIANA FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00735-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal., June 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Mahatma Brown Whole Grain Rice. The Defendant markets the product as "America's Favorite Rice" and is "100% Whole Grain," "Non-GMO," "Certified Gluten Free," and "Kosher." In reality, the product contains heavy metals such as arsenic and cadmium. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers 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 it. Riviana Foods, Inc. is a food manufacturer, with its principal address in Houston, Texas. [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 Email: tkashima@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@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 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com ROSE INTERNATIONAL: Richards Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Melvin Richards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Missouri Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2513598 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01568. Pursuant to the Plaintiff's filing of this class action complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the demand amount to exceed $35,000. Furthermore, the Plaintiff estimates the Class to consist of at least one hundred individuals.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Anthony C. Waddell, Esq. Melanie M. Butler, Esq. RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. 800 N. Haven Ave., Suite 430 Ontario, CA 91764 Phone/Facsimile: (909) 334-1232 Email: awaddell@rlattorneys.com SAITEX USA LLC: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saitex USA LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mariela Berenice Zuno Torres, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Saitex USA LLC, Martinez Cruz aka Jose Barajas, Case No. 25STCV18123 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." SAITEX -- https://www.sai-tex.com/ -- is a privately owned manufacturing and design company specializing in premium denim and over-dyed products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Christina Marie Le, 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 cle@lelawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: jeff@tomorrowlaw.com - and - Austin J Reid, Esq. 1740 S Quince St. Escondido, CA 92025-6431 Phone: 760-855-6237 SCDS INC: Laccinole Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SCDS, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Laccinole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SCDS, Inc. doing business as: American Star Mortgage, Case No. 8:25-cv-01353 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. SCDS, Inc. doing business as American Star Mortgage -- https://www.americanstarmortgage.com/ -- provides home loan options, new home loan programs, refinance, house purchase, and reverse mortgage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: 323-306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com SELECT MEDICAL: Fails to Secure PII, PHI, Eddings Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER EDDINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SELECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01130-JPW (M.D. Pa., June 23, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard protected health information (PHI) as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and other personally identifiable information (PII). The suit also alleges that Defendant failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that the integrity of their Private Information was compromised in a cyber incident (the Data Breach). As a condition of receiving services from the Defendant, patients are required to provide Defendant with personal information. When providing highly sensitive information to Defendant, patients expect that Defendant will employ adequate data security practices to protect their information from unlawful disclosure. On July 11, 2024, Nationwide Recovery Services, Inc. (NRS), a third-party vendor of Defendant, discovered suspicious activity on its IT network. In response, NRS launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The investigation determined that unauthorized access to NRS' IT Network occurred between July 5, 2024, and July 11, 2024. NRS then began a review of impacted data to determine what types of Private Information were compromised and to whom it belonged.4 NRS completed its review on or about February 3, 2025, and on April 9, 2025, NRS informed Defendant of the names of patients impacted by the Data Breach. The Defendant is a healthcare services provider that operates critical illness recovery hospitals, rehabilitation hospitals, and outpatient rehabilitation clinics in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KO LAWYERS 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com SERVICEAIDE INC: Mendez Suit Removed to W.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria Mendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SERVICEAIDE, INC., Case No. 808561/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on June 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00539. On May 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel M. Braude, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South Rye, NY 10580 Phone: (267) 930-1316 Email: dbraude@mullen.law SIG SAUER: Seeks Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA GLASSCOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIG SAUER, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file notice of supplemental authority in support of its suggestions in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Sig is a provider and manufacturer of firearms, electro-optics, ammunition, airguns, suppressors, and remote controlled weapons stations. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vg73Ud at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Colleen Carey Gulliver, Esq. Jason E. Kornmehl, Esq. Connor D. Rowinski, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 E-mail: colleen.gulliver@us.dlapiper.com jason.kornmehl@us.dlapiper.com connor.rowinski@us.dlapiper.com - and - Cara Rose, Esq. FRANKE SCHULTZ & MULLEN, P.C. 1919 E. Battlefield, Suite B Springfield, MO 65804 Telephone: (417) 863-0040 E-mail: crose@fsmlawfirm.com - and - Robert L. Joyce, Esq. B. Keith Gibson, Esq. LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA & KELLY LLP 4 Manhattanville Road, Suite 202 Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone: (914) 417-3400 E-mail: robert.joyce@littletonjoyce.com keith.gibson@littletonjoyce.com SKYMOUNT PROPERTY: Stockdale Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skymount Property Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kristi Stockdale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Skymount Property Group, LLC, Skymount Realty, LLC doing business as: Skymount Buys Houses, Case No. 1:25-cv-01282 (N.D. Ohio, June 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Skymount Property Group -- https://skymount.net/ -- specializes in commercial real estate acquisitions as well as opportunities for investors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC 7500 Rialto Boulevard, Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Phone: (737) 310-3210 Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com SLEEPARE FLORIDA: Ariza Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------------ ICTOR ARIZA v. SLEEPARE FLORIDA LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-22921 (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2025) is a class action alleging that the Defendant's Website, https://www.sleepare.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of retail stores nationwide under the name "Sleepare." The Defendant also owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.sleepare.com. One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant’s physical stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roderick V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Telephone: (954) 362-3800 Facsimile: (954) 362-3779 E-mail: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com duranandassociates@gmail.com - and - Pelayo M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A. 6355 N.W. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Telephone: (305) 266-9780 Facsimile: (305) 269-8311 SPARTAN SOLAR: Matthews Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spartan Solar LLC. The case is styled as Thomas Matthews, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Spartan Solar LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01117 (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. Spartan Solar -- https://www.spartansolar.earth/ -- has been serving the solar energy community for over 8 years.[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 SPRINGER NATURE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Hahn ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANG-GYU HAHN, v. SPRINGER NATURE LIMITED, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03816-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. On May 8, 2025, the plaintiff filed the initial complaint as well as requests for issuance of summons as to each defendant. On May 9, 2025, the Honorable Vernon S. Broderick, United States District Judge, sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to plead a basis of federal subject-matter jurisdiction but granted leave to amend. On May 12, 2025, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging subject-matter jurisdiction based on complete diversity of citizenship. Springer provides publishing services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sBx4FE at no extra charge.[CC] STAPLES THE OFFICE: Class Cert Filing in Weiser Due May 11, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Teri Weiser v. Staples The Office Superstore LLC et al. (IN RE STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE, LLC LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-09848-CAS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina Snyder entered a scheduling order as follows: Feb. 16, 2026: The Parties' deadline to meet and confer regarding the topics in the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification; March 2, 2026: The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification; May 11, 2026: Staples' deadline to file an opposition to the motion; June 15, 2026: The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in support of the motion; and June 29, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.: Hearing on the motion for class certification. Staples retails office supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p7Yedc at no extra charge.[CC] STEPHEN AUSTIN: Faces Myers Class Suit Over Athletic Program ------------------------------------------------------------ SOPHIA MYERS, KARA KAY, RYANN ALLISON, ELAINA AMADOR, BERKLEE ANDREWS, and MEAGAN LEDBETTER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY; a member of THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM, Case No. 9:25-cv-00187 (E.D. Tex., June 30, 2025) seek to block SFA's latest efforts to discriminate against women in its intercollegiate athletic program and require the school to comply with federal law. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to prohibit SFA from eliminating its women’s beach volleyball, bowling, and golf teams—and all other women’s teams—unless and until SFA is and will be providing women with the equal opportunities to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics that Title IX requires. Prior to filing the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs' counsel sent SFA a letter raising concerns about the elimination of the women's teams, explaining why the elimination of the teams violates Title IX, and asking SFA to agree to continue women’s beach volleyball, bowling, and golf and develop a plan to comply with Title IX. Though brief negotiations ensued, SFA would not agree to reinstate all three teams or come into compliance with Title IX, forcing Plaintiffs to file this case. The Plaintiff will be a senior at SFA majoring in chemistry and biology. She will graduate in 2026 and has one year of athletic eligibility remaining. Ms. Myers is a member of the SFA beach volleyball team. She joined the team as a walk-on after a successful high school career playing both beach volleyball and indoor volleyball. SFA is a member of the University of Texas System. It is a public educational institution created by the State of Texas under the control and management of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur Bryant, Esq. ARTHUR BRYANT LAW, P.C. 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 391-5454 E-mail: arthur@arthurbryantlaw.com - and - John Clune, Esq. Ashlyn Hare, Esq. 921 Walnut Street Ste 200 Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 442-5614 Facsimile: (303) 442-6593 E-mail: john.clune@hbcboulder.com ashlyn.hare@hbcboulder.com - and - James L. Sowder, Esq. Ellen R. Platt, Esq. THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, LLP 700 N. Pearl St. 25th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 871-8200 Facsimile: (214) 871-8209 E-mail: jsowder@thompsoncoe.com eplatt@thompsoncoe.com STERICYCLE INC: Huerta Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations ------------------------------------------------------------- Ulises Huerta, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. STERICYCLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV127792 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2025), is brought under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay compensations. In this case, Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to Defendant's: failure to pay wages including overtime; failure to provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more than 5 or 10 hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period; failure to provide rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; failing to pay timely wages required by Labor Code 203; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; an) failing to indemnify necessary business expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants. STERICYCLE, INC. operates as a waste management business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com STRYKER CORPORATION: Belleque Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christian Belleque, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STRYKER CORPORATION, a foreign corporation and STRYKER EMPLOYMENT COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 25-2-08587-8 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05554. The Complaint asserts a purported class-action lawsuit for violations of Washington's Law Prohibiting Unlawful Noncompetition Covenants. The Plaintiff alleges Stryker violated Washington law by: "requiring all employes and independent contractors who worked in sales or services roles or a role that Stryker classified as salaried or exempt to sign the Agreement, including the noncompete provision, as a condition of employment;" and "upon termination Stryker sends workers who signed the Agreement a letter reminding the worker of their 'post-employment restriction,' including the noncompete."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kyle D. Nelson, Esq. Jacob J. Roes, Esq. Hoorya R. Ahmad, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-946-4910 Email: knelson@seyfarth.com jjroes@seyfarth.com hahmad@seyfarth.com STRYKER CORPORATION: Muniz Suit Removed to W.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Julia Muniz, on behalf of her minor child, E.M.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRONSON HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., Case No. 25-2-08587-8 was removed from the Circuit Court for the County of Kalamazoo, State of Michigan, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan on June 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00693-JMB-PJG. The Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 2, 2025. Her complaint alleges causes of action for negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), breach of implied contract (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), and breach of fiduciary duty (Count V) stemming from an alleged data breach of Plaintiff's and others' private information. She seeks to pursue these claims on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes (P68724) Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com eeh@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.C. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey G. Muth, Esq. MILLER JOHNSON 45 Ottawa Ave SW, Suite 1100 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Phone: (616) 831-1700 Email: muthjg@millerjohnson.com - and - Erin Bolan Hines, Esq. Jessie L. Sharon, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 123 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 382-3100 Email: ebolanhines@cozen.com jsharon@cozen.com SUNFLOWER BANK: Ross Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNIQUE ROSS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and all others similarly situated v. SUNFLOWER BANK, N.A., Case No. 226303758 (Fla. Cir., Orange Cty., June 30, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages for all hours worked including those above 40 in a workweek, liquidated damages and/or prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees and litigation expenses. under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff and the class are all current and former non-exempt classified branch employees who worked for Sunflower Bank within the United States within the applicable liability period. Sunflower classifies its BEs as non-exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA. Sunflower regularly suffered and/or permitted BEs, including Claimant, to work more than 40 hours in a workweek, but did not pay BEs for all of their hours worked, asserts the suit. Specifically, Sunflower required BEs to arrive at their locations prior to their scheduled start times in order to perform opening security procedures and boot up their computers before clocking in. As a result, Sunflower failed to pay Plaintiff and other BEs for all hours worked, including overtime premium pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit adds. Sunflower provides banking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Tamra C. Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 SYRACUSE INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ferrara, et al., v. United Auto Supply of Syracuse, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00337 (N.D.N.Y. Filed March 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order granting the Letter Motion insofar as and to the extent that the schedules and deadlines are extended as follows: (1) The parties shall filed a joint July 23, 2025 detailed status report regarding status and progress of discovery by: (2) Plaintiffs shall file any class Oct. 7, 2025 certification motion by: (3) The Plaintiffs expert disclosure Sept. 15, 2025 deadline is: (4) Defendants expert disclosure Oct. 28, 2025 deadline is: (5) Rebuttal expert disclosure Nov. 12, 2025 deadline is: (6) Deadline for completion of all Dec. 15, 2025 discovery, including merits, class, all depositions, is:; and (7) Dispositive motions shall be Feb. 17, 2026 filed by: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Established in 1946, United Auto Supply is a wholesale distribution of original equipment, aftermarket automotive parts and accessories.[CC] TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Fraudulent Transfers ---------------------------------------------------- American Federation Of State, County qnd Municipal Employees, District Council 47, Health And Welfare Fund; and 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund; 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund; 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund For Home Care Workers; 1199SEIU Licensed Practical Nurses Welfare Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC; TARO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TARO PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.; SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.; SUN PHARMA HOLDINGS; ALKALOIDA CHEMICAL CO. ZRT; THE TARO DEVELOPMENT CORP.; and LIBRA MERGER LTD., Case No. 2:25-cv-03190 (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2025), is brought recover the value of fraudulent transfers that Taro USA and its parent entities made to Sun Pharma to hinder, delay, and defraud Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons from recovering billions of dollars owed to them because of Taro USA's illegal conduct in the pricing of generic pharmaceuticals. This action involves a set of circumstances that are as old as legal liability for money damages: a debtor facing a lawsuit transfers its assets and incurs obligations to a friendly person without receiving equivalent value in return, leaving the debtor insolvent so that the debtor's creditors cannot collect on their claims. For nearly five centuries, the law has provided remedies for creditors against this behavior in the form of fraudulent transfer statutes. Here, Plaintiffs sue under New York's current version of that statute, a statute that applies to fraudulent transfers made by an entity that, like Taro USA, has its chief executive office located in that state. Plaintiffs bring this action in this District because of its liabilities in a multidistrict proceeding pending in this District that Taro USA is attempting to evade. On June 24, 2024, Sun Pharma merged with Taro Israel (and thus acquired Taro subsidiaries, including Taro USA). Prior to June 24, 2024, Taro Israel was an independent, publicly held company that was majority owned, but not wholly owned, by Sun Pharma. Upon completion of the merger, Taro Israel and its subsidiaries became private companies wholly owned by Sun Pharma. After the merger with Sun, Taro was de-listed from the New York Stock Exchange. The Sun/Taro merger transactions (the transfers made, the obligations undertaken, and the ongoing restructuring of Taro) were made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, and defraud Plaintiffs and the other EPPs, were without reasonably equivalent value in exchange and left Taro USA insolvent, with assets that, at a fair valuation, are worth less than the sum of its debts, including the claims of the EPPs. In undertaking the merger, Defendants intended to capture the value accumulated by and remaining in Taro USA, in the form of the ongoing sales and the accumulated cash and cash equivalents stored in Taro Canada and Taro Israel, while abandoning the obligation by those Taro entities to pay the debts owed to injured parties arising from Taro USA's criminal conduct. Defendants knew (or reasonably should have known) that Taro USA would be unable pay its debts to EPPs as they came due, says the complaint. The Plaintiff American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 47, Health and Welfare Fund ("DC 47") is an employee welfare benefits fund that provides health benefits. Taro Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is a New York company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. Adam J. Pessin, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-567-6565 Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco CA 94111-3359 Email: ddrachler@lchb.com - and - William J. Leonard, Esq. OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP Centre Square West 1500 Market Street, Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19102-2101 Email: William.Leonard@obermayer.com - and - Deborah R. Willig, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Email: dwillig@wwdlaw.com TASKUS INC: Prelim Approval of $17.5M Deal in Lozada Recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case 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 Civ. 1479 (JPC)(GS)(S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Gary Stein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recommended the approval of the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The complaint alleged that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that TaskUs was experiencing severe financial strain and business challenges, particularly with its most important customer, Facebook, and the Content Security market was smaller than the Defendants represented, and their representations were based on outdated market data. Judge Cronan referred the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to Magistrate Judge Stein for a report and recommendation. On May 20, 2025, Judge Stein issued an Order after having reviewed the papers submitted in support of the motion. The May 20 Order stated that he was prepared to recommend that Judge Cronan grant the Plaintiffs' motion and enter their proposed Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Class Notice, provided that certain modifications were made to the Stipulation of Settlement and its exhibits and to the proposed Preliminary Approval Order. On May 27, 2025, the parties submitted a revised Stipulation of Settlement, together with revised exhibits and a revised proposed Preliminary Approval Order. Their submission included redlines showing changes against the versions of these papers originally submitted by the parties. Magistrate Judge Stein reviewed these materials and found the parties' modifications to the motion papers to be acceptable. He attached to his Report & Recommendation a proposed Preliminary Approval Order for consideration by Judge Cronan, which reflected the parties' recent revisions and his other modifications, including dates for the fairness hearing and other dates keyed off the date of the fairness hearing. Magistrate Judge Stein noted that he left blank other dates keyed off the date of the Preliminary Approval Order itself. According to the search results, TaskUs entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to resolve the litigation for an all-cash amount of $17.5 million on February 24, 2025. The proposed settlement represents a significant step toward securing a meaningful recovery for TaskUs investors after extensive litigation and discovery efforts. The case, filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired TaskUs securities between June 11, 2021 and January 19, 2022, inclusive, is confirmed as a certified class action lawsuit. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Stein recommended that Judge Cronan (1) grant the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and (2) enter an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Class Notice. The parties shall have fourteen days, inclusive of weekends and holidays, from the date of the Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. Any such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of Court. Any request for an extension of time to file objections must be directed to Judge Cronan. A failure to file timely objections will preclude appellate review. A copy of the Court's Report & Recommendation is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uLDVIu TEVA PHARMA: Law Firms Partially Compelled to Show Docs in Burge ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DENA BURGE, LEIGH HOCKETT, JORDAN FURLAN, CRISTINE RIDEY, PATRICIA SAWCZUK, and ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., TEVA SALES & MARKETING, INC., and CEPHALON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-2501-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Compel Non-Parties Burns Charest LLP, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., and Sharp Law LLP to Produce Documents. The plaintiffs, representing a proposed class, alleged that the defendants and their co-conspirators entered an unlawful reverse payment settlement and conspired to safeguard their monopoly on Nuvigil, a wakefulness drug with the generic name Armodafinil. They alleged the defendants agreed to stay out of the EpiPen market, allowing Mylan and Pfizer to maintain their EpiPen monopoly. In exchange, they contended, Mylan and Pfizer agreed to stay out of the Nuvigil market, allowing the defendants to maintain their Nuvigil monopoly. Based on these factual allegations, the plaintiffs asserted four claims: (1) a Sherman Act claim; (2) claims for Conspiracy and Combination in Restraint of Trade under various state laws; (3) claims for Monopolization and Monopolistic Scheme under various state laws; and (4) a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim. Early in the case, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims as barred by the statute of limitations. Judge Crabtree denied their motion. He found that the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO claims were subject to a four-year statute of limitations, but they had alleged facts capable of supporting a plausible finding or inference that fraudulent concealment and equitable tolling apply to toll the statute of limitations. He further noted a factual dispute exists over whether and when the plaintiffs possessed either actual or constructive knowledge of their claims and over their diligence in discovering their claims. Judge Crabtree also concluded the plaintiffs plausibly alleged the defendants actively concealed their wrongdoing, but stated the latter are free to attempt to persuade the jury that a reasonable plaintiff should have had notice of their claims from the press releases or Mylan's disclosure regarding the patent litigation settlements. He also addressed the defendants' argument the EpiPen MDL plaintiffs were represented by several of the same lawyers in this case, noting as an initial matter, the court can't rely on the knowledge of plaintiffs' lawyers in order to impute the plaintiffs' counsel's knowledge onto plaintiffs themselves if there is no indication these plaintiffs had a relationship with their attorneys in 2017. Judge Crabtree's ruling suggested a bifurcated approach to discovery with initial discovery focused on the pivotal issue of timeliness. Magistrate Judge James subsequently entered the Phase I Scheduling Order, which limited Phase I Timeliness/Limitations discovery to the timeliness of the plaintiffs' claims under the applicable statutes of limitations and any related statute-of-limitations issues, facts, and circumstances, including the defendants' statute of limitations defense or defenses and the elements thereof and the issues of tolling, equitable tolling, and fraudulent concealment and the elements thereof. As part of Phase I discovery, the defendants served subpoenas upon three law firms that represent the plaintiffs in this action: Keller Rohrback, L.L.P., Sharp Law LLP, and Burns Charest LLP. The subpoenas contained four requests: Subpoena Requests 1 and 2 sought documents and communications the Law Firms disseminated soliciting potential plaintiffs for participation, respectively, in the EpiPen MDL and this action. Request 3 sought documents and communications related to the EpiPen MDL made publicly available via the Law Firms' websites or any other platform from January 1, 2016 through the present. Request 4 sought documents and communications related to this action made publicly available via the Law Firms' websites or any other platform from January 2021 through the present. The Law Firms served their respective responses to the subpoenas, asserting various objections, including relevance, burden, and privilege. They opposed the motion, arguing: (a) non-public solicitations sent to other potential plaintiffs who are not the named plaintiffs in this case are not relevant to Phase I timeliness discovery, and the Law Firms are not withholding any responsive documents as privileged under defendants' definition of "solicitations;" (b) they do not maintain an archive of past versions of their websites; and (c) neither the ESI Protocol, nor customary standards of ESI production, require production of webpage "metadata." The defendants requested an order compelling the Law Firms to: (a) produce all solicitations the Law Firms disseminated to any potential plaintiffs for participation in this Action, responsive to Subpoena Request 2; (b) produce improperly withheld EpiPen MDL solicitations and documents made publicly available on websites and other platforms, responsive to Subpoena Requests 1 and 3; and (c) collect and produce associated "metadata" showing when webpage-based publications were publicly shared. They argued the Law Firms' solicitations sent to all potential plaintiffs for participation in this Nuvigil action are relevant to plaintiffs' constructive or inquiry notice, not just the named plaintiffs' actual notice of their claims. More specifically, the requested non-party solicitations are relevant to establish when and how plaintiffs were solicited by the Law Firms, and whether the information shared as part of the solicitations was information plaintiffs could have and should have been aware of prior to December 2018. Magistrate Judge James found non-public solicitations the Law Firms sent to other potential plaintiffs who are not parties to this litigation are not relevant to any Phase I timeliness issue. The defendants did not explain how information conveyed via the Law Firms' non-public solicitations sent to other potential plaintiffs could be imputed to the named plaintiffs as constructive or inquiry knowledge of the plaintiffs' claims in this case. Their argument seemed to hinge on speculation that the named plaintiffs may have received the same solicitations at the same time the Law Firms disseminated them to others. Magistrate Judge James sustained the Law Firms' relevance objections to producing any solicitations responsive to Subpoena Request 2 that were not disseminated publicly or sent directly to one of the named plaintiffs. Therefore, she sustained the Law Firms' relevance objections to producing any solicitations responsive to Subpoena Request 2 that were not disseminated publicly or sent directly to one of the named plaintiffs. Regarding privilege objections, she found it axiomatic that any solicitations sent to the named plaintiffs before an attorney-client relationship was established with the Law Firms would not be attorney-client privileged. The Law Firms therefore cannot withhold as privileged documents and communications responsive to Request 2 for the named plaintiffs before an attorney-client relationship was established. Hence, each Law Firm must produce any solicitations sent to the named plaintiffs before an attorney-client relationship with the Law Firm was established and must list on their privilege log any solicitations responsive to Request 2 after an attorney-client relationship was established. The defendants requested the Law Firms produce improperly withheld documents responsive to Subpoena Requests 1 and 3, soliciting EpiPen MDL plaintiffs or related to the EpiPen MDL that the Law Firms made publicly available via their website or any other platform. They stated they had identified, from their own search, past publications on the Law Firms' websites they claimed are responsive and had not been produced. Magistrate Judge James found unpersuasive the Law Firms' argument that past publications publicly posted on their own websites are not within their possession, custody, or control. That the Law Firms may not currently possess or have in their custody past versions of their websites showing the responsive publications does not establish they lack control or the practical ability to locate and obtain the requested publications. She found the Law Firms would have "control" over their own websites, including the ability to add or remove publications and documents from the websites. Magistrate Judge James ordered the Law Firms to conduct a good faith search for and produce all communications and documents made publicly available on their websites or other platform responsive to Subpoena Requests 1 and 3. They shall also serve supplemental or amended responses to Requests 1 and 3 stating they have made a good faith search for responsive publications and documents publicly available on their websites, and indicating whether any additional responsive publications or documents were located as a result of those searches. The defendants requested the Law Firms be compelled to collect the requested website documents using "appropriate e-discovery tools and to then reproduce them with the necessary metadata." The Law Firms argued the parties' ESI Protocol and customary standards of ESI production do not require them to provide the information defendants request. Magistrate Judge James found that the Law Firms have sufficiently shown the requested webpage metadata is not reasonably accessible. The defendants' request for the Law Firms to re-produce their responsive webpage publications with "appropriate metadata" is denied. However, Magistrate Judge James noted that even though it will not require the Law Firms to produce responsive past webpage publications with "metadata," this does not mean the Law Firms are relieved of their responsibility to provide information regarding the dates when responsive publications and documents were publicly posted or disseminated. To the extent the Law Firms' production of responsive past webpage publications would not include the dates when the publications were publicly available on their websites, then the Law Firms must use their good faith best efforts to determine those dates and provide that information to defendants in their responses to the Subpoena Requests 1 and 3. In light of the foregoing, Magistrate Judge James granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Compel Non-Parties Burns Charest LLP, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., and Sharp Law LLP to Produce Documents as set forth. She further ordered that all production and supplemental or amended responses she ordered shall be served within 14 days of the date of her Order and that the privilege log(s) are due within 30 days after the production ordered. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0XR94K THORNTONS LLC: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Monique A. Gonzalez and Evelina Carrillo, individuals on behalf of themselves, the State of California, as a private attorneys general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THORNTONS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 25CV011404 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00519. On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff commenced an action against Thorntons by filing a Complaint asserting ten causes of action for failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums, failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums, failure to maintain accurate employment records, failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to pay all wages earned an unpaid at separation, failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara I. Antonucci, Esq. Stacy Lall, Esq. Dongying Zhang, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-918-3000 Email: bantonucci@constangy.com slall@constangy.com dzhang@constangy.com - and - Kenneth D. Sulzer, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-909-7775 Email: ksulzer@constangy.com THORNTONS LLC: Phillips Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chondra Phillips, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the State of California, and other aggrieved employees; MICHELLE PANKS GRIFFIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THORNTONS LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CV093743 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05215. On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff commenced an action against Thorntons by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda asserting causes of action for failure to pay minimum 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 indemnify employees for expenditures, and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara I. Antonucci, Esq. Stacy Lall, Esq. Dongying Zhang, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-918-3000 Email: bantonucci@constangy.com slall@constangy.com dzhang@constangy.com - and - Kenneth D. Sulzer, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-909-7775 Email: ksulzer@constangy.com UHS OF MADERA: Reyes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UHS OF MADERA, INC. The case is styled as Natasha Reyes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UHS OF MADERA, INC., Case No. MCV095480 (Cal. Super. Ct., Madera Cty., June 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Employment. UHS of Madera, Inc. -- https://uhs.com/ -- is a behavioral health facility in Madera, California, specializing in adult and adolescent inpatient and outpatient mental health services.[BN] US CLAIMS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Koprowski Says -------------------------------------------------------- JOHN KOPROWSKI, RICHARD O'BRINGER, and TIMOTHY VACTOR, behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. US CLAIMS CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a US CLAIMS, Case No. CACE-25-009404 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., June 25, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network ("Data Breach") that personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and other individuals. The Data Breach occurred on or about January 7,2025. The Plaintiffs and class Members were sent letters in the mail from Defendant dated April 11, 2025. The Plaintiffs and other Class Members were applicants or clients of the Defendant who, in the course of dealing with the Defendant, provided their sensitive personal information to the Defendant. The Defendant is a national litigation funding company that loans Plaintiffs in personal injury, workers' compensation, qui tam, medical malpractice, or other types of cases money before or after their cases settle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail:ostrow@kolawyers.com US FINANCIAL: Sanchez's Voluntary Dismissal from Bumpus Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as PATRICK S. BUMPUS, v. U.S. FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Case No. 2:20-cv-00926-DC-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dena Coggins of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff Cyrus Sanchez's motion for voluntary dismissal of his claims without prejudice and dismissed him from the action. The case is confirmed as a putative class action. The original complaint was filed as a putative class action against his insurer, Defendant U.S. Financial Life Insurance Company. The case involves Plaintiff Bumpus and the putative class members with claims based on life insurance policies that lapsed due to nonpayment of premium. However, the parties agree that Plaintiff Sanchez is not a member of the putative class Plaintiff Bumpus seeks to represent in the case. On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff Bumpus, an insured, filed a complaint initiating the putative class action against his insurer, U.S. Financial, asserting claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and unfair competition based on the Defendant's refusal to comply with California insurance laws regulating the lapse and termination of life insurance policies. After the Defendant provided to Plaintiff Bumpus a list identifying potential class members, including Cyrus Sanchez, Plaintiff Bumpus sought to add him as a named plaintiff in the lawsuit. On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff Bumpus and the Defendant filed a joint stipulation requesting the court grant Plaintiff Bumpus leave to file a first amended complaint to add Plaintiff Sanchez, a beneficiary of the life insurance policy issued by the Defendant to Plaintiff Sanchez's late husband, Bates Botting. The Court granted the parties' joint request, and the Plaintiffs filed their operative first amended complaint on January 23, 2024. Approximately five months later, on June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Sanchez filed the pending motion for voluntary dismissal of his claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). In his motion, he explained that he learned for the first time through the course of discovery that the named insured Mr. Botting had taken steps inconsistent with maintaining the policy. Consequently, after reviewing the discovery produced by Defendant in this litigation, he believed he does not have a viable claim against the Defendant, and dragging out his lawsuit is unnecessary and would create further costs and burdens for both parties to no purpose. In his reply brief, Plaintiff Sanchez clarified that he learned from discovery the Defendant produced in mid-May 2024, that his late husband, Mr. Botting, had voluntarily surrendered his life insurance policy. The claims brought by Plaintiff Bumpus and the putative class members are based on life insurance policies that lapsed due to "nonpayment of premium." On July 5, 2024, the Defendant filed an opposition to the pending motion, although it does not actually dispute that Plaintiff Sanchez's claims should be dismissed. Rather, it contended Plaintiff Sanchez must first be required to provide further responses to written discovery requests and have his deposition taken by the Defendant before he can be dismissed from the action. On July 15, 2024, Plaintiff Sanchez filed a reply in support of his pending motion, emphasizing that he already responded to the Defendant's written discovery requests and he has no documents and no relevant information to provide in any further response or deposition. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. District courts have discretion to dismiss a case with or without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is without prejudice. The purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is to permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action without prejudice so long as the defendant will not be prejudiced or unfairly affected by dismissal. A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result. Judge Coggins noted that Plaintiff Sanchez and the Defendant agree that Plaintiff Sanchez's claims should be dismissed. Given that all parties agree that Plaintiff Sanchez's claims are not viable, dismissal of Plaintiff Sanchez is indeed appropriate. Further, the Defendant does not challenge dismissal of Plaintiff Sanchez without prejudice, as the parties agree that she is not a member of the putative class Plaintiff Bumpus seeks to represent in the case. Judge Coggins found that imposing discovery-related conditions on Plaintiff Sanchez's dismissal is not appropriate under the circumstances of this case. She emphasized that it was the Defendant who identified Plaintiff Sanchez as a possible class member (which turned out to be inaccurate), and he was added as a named plaintiff nearly four years after Plaintiff Bumpus filed the original complaint. Indeed, Plaintiff Bumpus remains in the case, and the Defendant has already deposed Plaintiff Bumpus and his wife. The Defendant served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on Plaintiff Sanchez on March 14, 2024, and he served his responses thereto on May 20, 2024. On May 28, 2024, the Plaintiffs' counsel followed up in an email asking the Defendant to produce the audio files or other communications from Mr. Botting that the Defendant contends show Mr. Botting did not wish to maintain the policy and had affirmatively surrendered the policy. Shortly thereafter, on June 3, 2024, the Plaintiffs' counsel emailed the Defendant's counsel stating, in light of the documents produced by the Defendant in which Mr. Botting requested surrender of his policy, Plaintiff Sanchez will be dismissing his claims. The Defendant's counsel responded on June 10, 2024, stating they do not consent to the dismissal of Plaintiff Sanchez. Judge Coggins distinguished this case from Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc., noting that unlike the extensive discovery and deposition preparation undertaken by the defendant in Sherman, here it appears the Defendant has not already expended time and resources preparing for Plaintiff Sanchez's deposition. In mid-May 2024, it asked to set Plaintiff Sanchez's deposition for June 17, 2024, but then asked to postpone the deposition to July 2024, suggesting it did not expend significant time preparing for the deposition of Plaintiff Sanchez. Judge Coggins also noted that unlike the plaintiff in Sherman, who no longer wished to participate in the litigation but who still had direct experiences with the defendant that were relevant to the putative class claims and class certification, here both parties agree that Plaintiff Sanchez has no viable claims, he did not experience any lapsing of a life insurance policy, and he was mistakenly identified as a putative class member. For the reasons she explained, Judge Coggins granted Plaintiff Cyrus Sanchez's motion for voluntary dismissal of his claims brought in this action, without prejudice, and dismissed him from the action. Given the circumstances in the case, conditioning the dismissal of Plaintiff Sanchez by requiring him to first provide further responses to discovery or sit for a deposition is not warranted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SWvrIH USA: Doe et al. Win Partial Relief on Parole Benefit Suspensions ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SVITLANA DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; PETE R. FLORES, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; KIKA SCOTT, in her official capacity as the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Defendants, Judge Indira Talwani of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted temporary relief, on a class-wide basis, staying: (1) the suspension of adjudications of re-parole applications filed by individuals who received parole pursuant to the Parole Programs; (2) the suspension of adjudications of initial parole applications filed by individuals already present in the United States pursuant to the MPIP program; and (3) the suspension of adjudications for immigration benefits applications filed by individuals who received parole through the Parole Programs. The lawsuit challenges actions by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) affecting non-citizens who entered the United States lawfully through categorical parole programs and have not been accused of criminal conduct. The Court previously stayed the termination of existing parole grants for several hundred thousand individuals and certified a class for those affected by the termination of parole processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV programs). The current order addresses the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a preliminary injunction and stay of administrative actions impacting re-parole and immigration benefits adjudications for individuals paroled under programs like Uniting for Ukraine (U4U), Operation Allies Welcome (OAW), Family Reunification Parole (FRP), Central American Minors (CAM), and Military Parole in Place, as well as initial parole applications under MPIP. The lawsuit primarily challenges actions by the DHS regarding non-citizens who entered the United States lawfully, have not been accused of engaging in any criminal conduct, whether in the United States or elsewhere, and have sought to avail themselves of legal pathways for remaining in the United States. The Court noted that it had previously stayed the termination of existing grants of immigration parole for several hundred thousand individuals who lawfully entered the United States and certified a class consisting of such individuals. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) grants the Secretary of DHS discretionary authority to parole non-citizens into the United States temporarily on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. The Court cited the relevant statute: "The Secretary of Homeland Security may... in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States..." The MPIP program allows certain current and former military members and their relatives without legal status to apply for parole. The Court noted that the MPIP program allows certain current and former members of the military and their relatives who are in the United States without legal status to apply for parole. Congress reinforced this through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020, directing the Secretary to consider parole requests to enable military family unity. The Court outlined several parole programs: a. Operation Allies Welcome (OAW): Facilitated resettlement of Afghan nationals post-2021 U.S. military withdrawal, with approximately 76,000 parolees as of September 2022. b. Uniting for Ukraine (U4U): Established in April 2022 for Ukrainian citizens displaced by the war, requiring a U.S.-based supporter. As of September 2023, 158,000 individuals were paroled. c. CHNV Parole Programs: Initiated for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, capped at 24,000 beneficiaries per program, requiring vetting and a U.S. supporter. d. Family Reunification Parole (FRP): Allows certain individuals from specified countries to seek parole while awaiting family-based visa petitions. Individuals seeking parole through FRP werenconsidered on a case-by-case basis. e. Central American Minors (CAM): Permits lawfully present individuals to request parole for qualifying children and relatives from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.who are lawfully present in the United States to request that their qualifying children and relatives not present in the United States be granted access to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). The Plaintiffs challenged several agency actions: a. January 20, 2025 Executive Orders: President Trump issued orders directing the termination of categorical parole programs inconsistent with U.S. policies and emphasizing case-by-case parole adjudications. Plaintiffs do not directly challenge the Executive Orders. b. Huffman Memorandum (January 20, 2025): Acting Secretary Huffman declared categorical parole programs inconsistent with the INA and ordered a review to phase out non-compliant policies, stating, "It is evident that many current DHS policies and practices governing parole are inconsistent with 8 U.S.C Section 1182(d)(5)." c. Higgins Email (January 23, 2025): Directed USCIS staff to suspend adjudications of parole and re-parole applications under U4U, OAW, FRP, CAM, and CHNV programs, stating, "Pursuant to the Executive Order... Securing our Borders, and in accordance with the Huffman Memorandum, ensure effective immediately that your staff do not make any final decisions... for any initial parole or re-parole application..." d. Davidson Memorandum (February 14, 2025): Imposed an administrative hold on benefits adjudications for U4U, CHNV, and FRP parolees due to fraud concerns, stating, "USCIS will immediately place an administrative hold on all benefit requests filed by aliens who are or were paroled into the United States under the U4U, CHNV, or FRP processes..." e. March 25, 2025 Federal Register Notice: Terminated CHNV parole programs, with the court previously staying this action for revoking existing parole grants without case-by-case review. The Plaintiffs include individuals paroled under the programs and U.S. citizens seeking MPIP for family members. For example: a. Svitlana Doe, a Ukrainian paroled under U4U, faces risks to her family's stability without re-parole or work authorization. b. Teresa Doe, an El Salvadoran under CAM, risks family separation if deported. c. Adolfo Gonzales, Jr., a retired U.S. Army veteran, seeks MPIP for his wife, fearing family separation. d. Marim Doe, a Navy member, applied for MPIP for her father, motivated by his lack of legal status. They argue that the suspensions violate the APA by being arbitrary and capricious, failing to consider reliance interests, and lacking reasoned explanations. Upon careful examination, Judge Talwani held, addressing jurisdictional challenges, that the paroled Plaintiffs have standing to challenge suspensions of re-parole and benefits adjudications due to risks of deportation and loss of work authorization; and the actions are reviewable under the APA, as the parole statute provides standards for discretion, and the suspensions are not wholly committed to agency discretion. She found the suspension of re-parole adjudications arbitrary and capricious, as it disregarded APA procedural requirements, reliance interests, and lacked a reasoned explanation. She also found that without relief, the Plaintiffs face deportation, loss of work authorization, and family separation. These factors favor the Plaintiffs, as the relief does not limit the Secretary's discretion on individual cases but ensures consideration of applications. Judge Talwani verified the class action status, having previously certified a subclass for CHNV parolees. She now certified three additional subclasses under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2): Re-Parole Subclass: All individuals who have received humanitarian parole through already established humanitarian parole processes that provide for re-parole, [42] such as the U4U, OAW, FRP, MPIP, and CAM parole processes, with any pending applications for re-parole, except: (1) those individuals who voluntarily left, and remain outside, the United States prior to the issuance of the relevant agency action; and (2) those individuals who choose to opt out of the class in order to seek relief in separate litigation. Other Immigration Benefits Subclass: All individuals who have received humanitarian parole through already established humanitarian parole processes and have a pending application for any additional immigration benefit (besides re-parole), except: (1) those individuals who voluntarily left, and remain outside, the United States prior to the issuance of the relevant agency action; and (2) those individuals who choose to opt out of the class in order to seek relief in separate litigation. Parole in Place Supporter Subclass: All individuals who have a pending application to support any family member for initial parole through the Military Parole in Place program, except: (1) those individuals whose family members have voluntarily left, and remain outside, the United States prior to the issuance of the relevant agency action; and (2) those individuals who choose to opt out of the class in order to seek relief in separate litigation. She found numerosity (e.g., 200,000 Ukrainians, 75,000 Afghans), commonality (common APA violation claims), typicality (similar injuries and legal theories), and adequacy (no conflicts, qualified counsel). Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was appropriate, as a single injunction would provide class-wide relief. In view of the foregoing, Judge Talwani granted partial relief, stating: a. The January 23, 2025 email from former Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Jennifer B. Higgins is hereby stayed pending further court order, insofar as it suspends adjudications of re-parole applications filed by individuals who received parole pursuant to the programs specified in that email and insofar as it suspends adjudications of applications for non-parole benefits filed by individuals who received parole pursuant to those same programs. b. Any actions by the Defendants suspending adjudications of initial parole and re-parole applications filed by individuals who are seeking or who have received parole pursuant to the MPIP program, as well as applications for other immigration benefits filed by individuals paroled through that program, are hereby stayed pending further court order. c. The February 14, 2025 memorandum by Acting Deputy Director of USCIS, Andrew Davidson, is hereby stayed pending further court order, insofar as it suspends adjudications for immigration benefits applications filed by individuals who received parole through the U4U and FRP programs, as well as through the parole programs for noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (the CHNV parole programs). She denied the Defendant's request for a stay pending appeal, finding no strong showing of success on the merits or irreparable harm to the government. A copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xrU8nq UST GLOBAL INC: Mistry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UST Global, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Yogeshkumar Mistry and Rudolph Jackson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. UST Global, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0008591 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." UST -- https://www.ust.com/ -- is a global digital transformation solutions provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Joshua Orshansky, Esq. COUNSELONE, PC 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2624 Phone: 310-277-9945 Fax: 424-277-3727 Email: anthony@counselonegroup.com VNGR BEVERAGE: $8.9M Class Deal in Poppi Suit Gets Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as In re VNGR BEVERAGE, LLC LITIGATION, Case No. 24-cv-03229-HSG (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs brought this putative class action on behalf of purchasers of Poppi Prebiotic Soda. They alleged that Defendant VNGR markets Poppi as "gut healthy" due to its inclusion of prebiotic dietary fiber, but that this representation is misleading, as Poppi actually harms gut health. They said Poppi is harmful due to its low fiber content, high sugar content, and use of agave inulin, a type of prebiotic fiber that is less effective for promoting gut health and has been linked to adverse health effects. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that because Poppi products contain at most two grams of prebiotic fiber, consumers would need to drink more than four Poppi sodas per day for 21 consecutive days in order to notice any positive "prebiotic" effects. However, they alleged that any such benefits would be offset by the simultaneous consumption of an unhealthy amount of sugar due to Poppi's high sugar content. They maintained that consumers reasonably relied on Defendant's "gut healthy" representations in paying a premium for Poppi products and thus suffered economic injuries due to those misrepresentations. The operative complaint asserted violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, common law fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was later terminated when the parties entered settlement negotiations. In December 2024, the parties participated in a full-day mediation with Judge Jay C. Gandhi (Ret.) and ultimately entered into a settlement agreement. The Settlement Class is defined as "all persons in the United States who, between January 23, 2020 and the Settlement Notice Date, purchased in the United States, for household use and not for resale or distribution, one or more of the Products." "Products" is defined as "all flavors and package sizes of Poppi's beverages sold between January 23, 2020 and the Settlement Notice Date." Defendant will make an $8,900,000 non-reversionary payment. This gross settlement fund will cover Court-approved attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration fees, incentive payments to the named Plaintiffs, and payments to Class Members for approved claims. Class Members who submit an approved claim will receive $0.75 per single can of Product purchased, $3.00 per 4-pack of the Products purchased, $6.00 per 8-pack of the Products purchased, or $9.00 per 12-pack or 15-pack of the Products purchased. The minimum class payment for any approved claim is $5.00 per Household, and the maximum class payment for any approved claim without proof of purchase is $16.00 per Household. If the total value of all approved claims either exceeds or falls short of the funds available for distribution to Class Members, then the amounts of the class payments will be reduced or increased pro rata. If there is an upward adjustment, the maximum amount a person who submits a claim without proof of purchase may receive is $80. The parties propose that any remaining funds would go to Feeding America as the cy pres recipient. According to the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel may apply for an incentive award for each of the named Plaintiffs of no more than $5,000. The proposed class notice further states that the combined total amount of awards sought may not exceed $20,000. The Settlement Agreement also provides that Class Counsel will apply for an award of up to 30% of the gross settlement amount. Defendant reserves the right to oppose the fee application at its discretion. Class members must object to the Settlement Agreement or opt out (via regular mail only) within 60 days after the date that the notice plan commences. Judge Gilliam found that all the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met. Regarding numerosity, joinder of the hundreds of thousands of estimated Class Members would be impracticable. For commonality, common questions of law and fact include whether Defendant's claims about the "gut health" of the Products are false, misleading, deceptive, and unlawful, and whether such claims were likely to deceive reasonable customers. Judge Gilliam also found typicality satisfied because Plaintiffs' claims are both factually and legally similar to those of the putative class. As to adequacy of representation, he found no actual conflicts of interest and determined that proposed Class Counsel and Plaintiffs have prosecuted this action vigorously. The Court applied the four-factor test for preliminary approval and found that the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations. Although Class Counsel will apply for an award of up to 30% of the gross settlement amount, which is larger than the Ninth Circuit's benchmark of 25%, Judge Gilliam found no clear sailing agreement as Defendant reserves the right to oppose the fee application. The settlement is non-reversionary, with any unclaimed funds going to Feeding America as the cy pres recipient. Having weighed the relevant factors, Judge Gilliam preliminarily found that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and granted preliminary approval. He appointed (i) Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives and (ii) Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Gutride Safier LLP as the Class Counsel. The parties are directed to include both a joint proposed order and a joint proposed judgment when submitting their motion for final approval. The proposed order should thoroughly address all of the topics set forth in the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements. The parties should also review the Court's recent orders granting final approval of class action settlements and draft their proposed order accordingly. The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for each event listed below, which shall be submitted to the Court within seven days of the date of the Order. a. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all putative Class Members b. Filing deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion c. Filing deadline for incentive payment motion d. Deadline for Class Members to opt-out or object to settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive payment, at least 45 days after the filing of the motion for attorneys' fees and incentive payments e. Filing deadline for final approval motion g. Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class notice plan with specific edits identified by the Court, including defining "Household" in the notices and informing class members that they may object specifically to the motion for attorneys' fees and motion for incentive awards. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B3XYGM WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Chrisman Sues Over Wage and Hour Laws Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tess Chrisman, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-01546 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2025), is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class because of Defendants' systematic mistreatment of their employees, in violation of California's wage and hour laws for failure to pay minimum, regular, and overtime wages. The Defendants required Plaintiff and Class members to work without pay for hours or partial hours in several ways, including but not limited to waiting in lines to enter and exit the building at the beginning and end of shifts, as well as for meal breaks. Further, Defendants regularly failed to provide Plaintiff and Class members with proper meal breaks, failed to authorize and permit legally compliant rest breaks, and failed to provide meal and rest break premiums in lieu of such breaks. Thus, Defendants failed to provide accurate wage statements and maintain adequate records. Similarly, Defendants failed to pay Class members all their earned wages in a timely fashion throughout employment and upon termination. Similarly, Defendants failed to provide a place of employment that allowed Plaintiff and other members of the Class to use bathroom facilities in a healthful frequency, navigate facilities without risk of injuring their arms while handling heavy doors, and sit down as appropriate. Lastly, Defendants' quota system violated relevant California law and Plaintiff's and the Class's rights, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in April of 2016, as a "picker" of merchandise at one of Walmart's distribution warehouses. Walmart operates a warehouse distribution center in Chino, California, as well as many other similar locations throughout the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Hewgill, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP PC 1001 Wilshire Blvd 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 382-2222; Fax: (213) 382-2230 Email: jhewgill@ejlglaw.com WILINE NETWORKS: Court Narrows Claims in W.A. Call Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part WiLine's motion to dismiss in the case captioned as W.A. CALL MFG. CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. WILINE NETWORKS INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-07141-LB (N.D. Cal.). This putative class action involves three customers of WiLine, a nationwide company that primarily provides fixed-wireless Internet and telephone services to personal consumers as well as to small business consumers. The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of all persons and/or businesses in the State of California who incurred WiLine termination fees or were subjected to rate increases. WiLine uses a form contract for its internet and phone customers called the Service Agreement. In eight-point font, the Service Agreement states that the customer agrees to be bound "to this Order and Service Agreement Terms and Conditions as posted on www.wiline.com." The Service Agreement and its terms are not merely reproduced on the website. Rather, the Terms and Conditions is a separate document available only online. To access the Terms and Conditions, a customer has to navigate two additional pages from the homepage. The Terms and Conditions contain three relevant provisions. First, WiLine reserved the right to apply an annual price adjustment, based on the consumer price index, with 30 days' notice. Second, the Terms and Conditions contain an automatic renewal clause, which—absent 30 days' written notice from the customer—renews the agreement for a renewal term. Finally, the Terms and Conditions impose an early termination fee, calculated based on the number of months remaining under the renewal term. The plaintiffs alleged that WiLine increased its rates more than once a year, without notice, and by greater amounts than permitted. They further alleged that WiLine hid the existence of the automatic-renewal clause and used the cancellation fee to extract extra funds from consumers or prevent them from cancelling. First, Magistrate Judge Beeler addressed whether the complaint adequately alleged that WiLine's conduct has been declared unlawful by the FCC. She found it does not, explaining that common carriers cannot engage in any charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable under 47 U.S.C. Section 201(b). However, there is only a private right of action after the FCC determines that the conduct alleged violates the statute. The complaint alleged that WiLine's conduct violated Section 201 but did not identify any FCC determination to that effect. Therefore, this claim is dismissed with leave to amend. Next, Magistrate Judge Beeler examined whether unjust enrichment is a cognizable claim and whether it is adequately pleaded. The claim failed on both fronts. She held that unjust enrichment is an equitable principle, not a standalone claim. The complaint also did not adequately allege that legal remedies are inadequate. To the contrary, the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim alleged that they were overbilled, which is easily addressed by monetary damages. Hence, this claim is dismissed with prejudice, though granted leave to amend if the plaintiffs wish to seek equitable remedies for their other claims. Magistrate Judge Beeler then determined whether the complaint states a claim for unfair competition and found that it does. The UCL prohibits any "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice" under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. Magistrate Judge Beeler addressed three arguments from the defendant. First, the defendant argued that the named plaintiffs - all business customers - cannot avail themselves of the UCL. She rejected this argument, noting the case is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and/or businesses in California who incurred WiLine termination fees or service rate increases. Second, regarding the inadequacy of legal remedies, she found that while legal remedies may be sufficient for some theories, the plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant induced plaintiffs into adhesion contracts and failed to provide just and reasonable contract terms, requiring prospective injunctive relief. Third, the defendant argued insufficient allegations of unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent conduct, but Magistrate Judge Beeler found this argument failed. Therefore, the unfair competition claim survived. Magistrate Judge Beeler also analyzed whether the complaint states a claim for concealment and determined it does not. The elements of concealment require that the defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact, was under a duty to disclose the fact, intentionally concealed the fact with intent to defraud, the plaintiff was unaware and would not have acted if aware, and the plaintiff sustained damage as a result. The complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendant had a duty to disclose a material fact. Instead, it simply recited that the defendant "had exclusive knowledge of the Terms and Conditions." This allegation is a conclusory recitation of a legal element. Moreover, the complaint acknowledged that the Terms and Conditions were available online. Therefore, the concealment claim is dismissed with prejudice. Magistrate Judge Beeler addressed two issues: whether the complaint states a claim for false promise and whether the economic loss rule bars the claim. The claim survived both challenges. She held that under California law, a cause of action for fraud based on a false promise must allege (1) a material misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of its falsity, (3) intent to defraud or induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. The complaint adequately pleaded false promise by alleging that WiLine promised to only raise rates once a year with 30 days' notice based on the consumer price index and that WiLine did not intend to perform at the time it made these promises. Regarding the economic loss rule, she found it does not apply because WiLine is accused of fraud, not merely breach of contract. WiLine had a duty not to make false promises under California law irrespective of the contract. Hence, the false promise claim survived. As for whether the complaint states a claim for conversion, Magistrate Judge Beeler found it does not. The conversion claim failed because it mirrored the breach-of-contract claim. Unlike the fraud claim, there was no daylight between the theories. Both the breach of contract claim and conversion claim were premised on the same conduct—taking more money from plaintiffs' bank accounts than allowed by the agreements. This claim is dismissed with leave to amend. Magistrate Judge Beeler analyzed whether the complaint states a claim for negligence and determined it does not. The elements of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. The complaint failed on multiple fronts. Duty of care was not discussed. The complaint alleged that the defendant "acted negligently in its contract negotiations, contract execution, and billing practices" without explaining what acts constituted breach. The allegations regarding harm did not illuminate causation or damages. This claim is also dismissed with leave to amend. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Beeler resolved the motion as follows: Claim 2 (Section 201) was dismissed with leave to amend. Claim 3 (Unjust Enrichment) was dismissed with prejudice. Claim 4 (Unfair Competition) motion was denied, allowing the claim to proceed. Claim 5 (Concealment) was dismissed with prejudice. Claim 6 (False Promise) motion was denied, allowing the claim to proceed. Claim 7 (Conversion) was dismissed with leave to amend. Claim 8 (Negligence) was dismissed with leave to amend. She ordered that the plaintiffs must file any amended complaint, accompanied by a legal blackline, within 21 days of her Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VVpUUP ZEVIA LLC: Moledina Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Faisal Moledina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZEVIA, LLC, and ZEVIA CORPORATION, Case No. 25STCV15070 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-05656. The Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation and violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and California's False Advertising Law ("FAL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amber Trincado, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 374-2300 Facsimile: (415) 374-2499 Email: amber.trincado@hoganlovells.com - and - Joseph R. O'Connor, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 Email: joe.oconnor@hoganlovells.com - and - Christine Wang, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 855 Main Street, Suite 200 Redwood City, California 94063 Phone: (650) 463-4000 Facsimile: (650) 463-4199 Email: christine.wang@hoganlovells.com ZIMO EVENT: Barfield Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Juanepia Barfield, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ZIMO EVENT WORKS LLC d/b/a ADDIS PLAYGROUND ATLANTA, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company, and AZEEM JOLASUN, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-03505-JPB (N.D. Ga., June 24, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act of 2018 ("TIPA"), as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages as required by federal law. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs were not exempt from the minimum wage or overtime requirements of the FLSA. The Defendants paid no wages or other compensation to Plaintiffs for any work time on the premises. The Plaintiffs worked entirely for tips paid by Addis Playground Atlanta' customers. The Defendants classified Plaintiffs as independent contractors. The Plaintiffs had no opportunity for profit and loss associated with the Defendants. The Plaintiffs were economically dependent upon the Defendants for their livelihood, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are all former or current bartenders who worked for Defendants at their club known as Addis Playground Atlanta. Addis Playground Atlanta is an adult entertainment nightclub that features adult entertainers, including nude female entertainers, who perform throughout the Club's facility, which includes, in relevant part, stages, the floor area, and multiple bars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.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 ***