250709.mbx

250709.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 9, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 136 Headlines BELK INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Davis Suit Alleges CYTODYN INC: Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss Leronlimab Case EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Grimmett Alleges FERRARA CANDY: Appeals Court Trims Data Breach Claims GERBER PRODUCTS: Conry Suit Seeks to Compel Subpoena Duces Tecum ITS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification in BIPA Case Affirmed JOEL BIEBER: Roark Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action JOHN MUIR: Class Action Settlement in Nado Suit Gets Initial Nod JOHNSON HEALTH: Calderon Sues Over Defective Dumbbell Products JOHNSON HEALTH: Cosin Sues Over Mislabeled Dumbbell Products LEGACY HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Foley Alleges LIEBERMAN MANAGEMENT: Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Case Affirmed LOWES COMPANIES: Mismanages Retirement Fund, Denny Alleges META PIXEL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 18 OLYMPUS GROUP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Green Due May 20, 2026 PERMIAN RESOURCES: Basinski Sues Over Crude Oil Monopoly RAMP BUSINESS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bernstein Due Nov. 18 SALESFORCE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Young Due Sept. 5 STAPLES THE OFFICE: Class Cert Filing in Giordani Due May 11, 2026 STAPLES THE OFFICE: Class Cert Filing in Lumadue Due May 11, 2026 SUWANNEE VALLEY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 9, 2026 SWEET BRAZIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fernandes Alleges TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Court OK's Protective Order Bid TAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in McLaughlin Due Dec. 21 TIFFANY AND COMPANY: Schavrien Suit Removed to C.D. California TIM TIPTON: NRSOL Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma TRUE RELIGION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 5, 2026 UNIVERSITY SHOPPES: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Says US DERMATOLOGY: Olson Sues Over Data Breach WISCONSIN DOC: State High Court Flips Denial of Class Status Bid ********* BELK INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Davis Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00414 (W.D.N.C., June 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and protected health information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its customers' and employees' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. Belk, Inc. is a department store chain offering brand-name clothing, accessories, cosmetics, and housewares. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 Email: sharris@milberg.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 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com trh@federmanlaw.com CYTODYN INC: Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss Leronlimab Case ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned Brian Courter, et al., v. CytoDyn, Inc., et al., Case No. C21-5190-BHS United States District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the Western District of Washington at Tacoma denied the motions to dismiss filed by defendants CytoDyn, Inc., Michael Mulholland, Scott Kelly, and Nader Pourhassa. The court found that plaintiff Brian Courter plausibly alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act, specifically Section 10(b) and Section 20(a), based on false and misleading statements about CytoDyn's drug Leronlimab. The motions to dismiss, filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), were denied, allowing Courter's claims to proceed. CytoDyn is a Vancouver, Washington-based biotechnology company. Its primary drug candidate is Leronlimab, which it describes as a "humanized monoclonal antibody" that it is developing for a variety of potential uses. Mulholland was CytoDyn's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) from December 2012 to May 2021. Kelly was a CytoDyn director, Chairman of the Board, and Chief Science Officer over time, from April 2017 to December 19, 2022. Nader Pourhassan was the CEO, president, and a member of the board from 2011 to January 2022. Courter alleges that CytoDyn, Pourhassan, Mulholland, and Kelly materially misled investors about the progress and success of its ongoing efforts to obtain FDA approval for use of its sole drug, "Leronlimab," as a treatment for HIV and, later, for COVID-19. Courter alleges CytoDyn made false statements and failed to disclose important information to increase CytoDyn's stock price, and that he was damaged when the price fell because the true, dismal state of those efforts was revealed. Courter alleges CytoDyn's false statements arose in two overlapping contexts, over two years. The first context is CytoDyn's efforts to persuade the market that its HIV "biologic license application (BLA)" to the FDA was complete and that approval was imminent, to prop up CytoDyn's stock price. Courter contends that CytoDyn misled investors about its lengthy efforts to obtain FDA approval for Leronlimab as an HIV treatment. He contends CytoDyn publicly stated on April 27, 2020, that the HIV BLA was 'complete' when it was not; CytoDyn had not provided data, information and analyses the FDA had already told CytoDyn was required. Courter alleges that the stock price spiked because of CytoDyn's announcement, and that Pourhassan and Kelly exercised options to sell stock for almost $19 million between April 30 and May 4, 2020. CytoDyn did not acknowledge that its HIV BLA was in fact incomplete until May 4, which Courter contends predictably sent the stock price back down. On July 8, 2020, the FDA sent CytoDyn a nonpublic "Refuse to File (RTF)" letter, explaining that the May submission "had numerous omissions and inadequacies so severe as to render the application incomplete." Courter alleges that the letter meant that CytoDyn could not submit a complete HIV BLA without conducting an additional clinical trial. The second context for CytoDyn's allegedly false statements relates to its efforts to obtain FDA approval to use Leronlimab as an Investigational New Drug (IND) to treat COVID-19. Courter's claims arise primarily from statements related to its early emergency IND (eIND) use, and two subsequent clinical trials, CD10 and CD12. CytoDyn released the results of CD10 at the end of July 2020. While the study missed its primary endpoint, Courter asserts that CytoDyn falsely assured investors that the "more important" and "statistically significant" results for the National Early Warning Score2 (NEWS2) scale secondary endpoint demonstrated that Leronlimab was effective and that CytoDyn had "requested Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)' based on the results of CD10. Courter contends that these statements were false; CytoDyn knew the NEWS2 data was instead clinically meaningless, that CD10 did not support further FDA action, and that CytoDyn had not requested EUA." Courter contends that CytoDyn's efforts continued with a second clinical trial, CD12, which tested Leronlimab's efficacy for critically ill COVID-19 patients. He alleges CytoDyn "unblinded" this clinical trial on February 12, 2021, and that CD12 missed all its endpoints. Nevertheless, CytoDyn sent the FDA an Executive Summary seeking EUA for critically ill COVID-19 patients based on analysis of CD12 subgroups four days later. On February 18, the FDA denied the EUA because the subgroup analyses did not support efficacy and CytoDyn's emphasis on favorable trends in them was "potentially misleading." CytoDyn seeks dismissal of most of Courter's claims, arguing primarily that he has not sufficiently alleged that the statements upon which he relies were false or misleading, measured against the "formidable" pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). It argues that Courter had failed to plead specific facts supporting a strong inference of scienter and emphasizes that, in contrast to the Court's "typical" Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, it must consider plausible, nonculpable explanations for the defendant's conduct, and account for "plausible opposing inferences." CytoDyn argues that Courter must plead scienter for each defendant, and must set forth, "in great detail, facts that constitute strong circumstantial evidence of deliberately reckless or conscious misconduct." It argues that Courter's complaint ignores the context in which the many statements at issue were made. Upon careful examination, the court found that "Courter has plausibly pled that CytoDyn's statements were false or misleading. The motion to dismiss Courter's Rule 10b-5(b) is denied. -- HIV BLA Statements According to the court, "Courter has specifically and plausibly pled that the BLA was still not 'complete' after the May 2020 submission, that the FDA did not seek only 'additional information' about an ongoing trial, and that it had all the data it required and thus would not have to do any more clinical trials. Courter asserts that these statements were materially misleading and false: the submission was not complete, the FDA's RTF letter sought information it had been seeking since 2018, and it did not inform CytoDyn that additional clinical trials were unnecessary." The court further noted, "Even against the heightened pleading standards applicable to his claim, Courter has plausibly alleged that CytoDyn's statements regarding the HIV BLA were false and misleading, based on what CytoDyn knew at the time the statements were made. CytoDyn's motion to dismiss Count I based on its BLA statements is denied." -- COVID-19 The court determined, "Courter has plausibly and specifically pled that CytoDyn misleadingly spun the FDA's adverse decision as a demonstration of Leronlimab's efficacy, and a 'green light' to proceed with clinical trials. The FDA understandably rebuked it because these statements were contrary to the truth, which was that there was no evidence of efficacy and formal trials were required to obtain usable data. CytoDyn's motion to dismiss Courter's Rule 10b-5(b) claim based on statements CytoDyn made about the COVID-19 eINDs is denied. -- CD10 Statements The court found, "Courter has plausibly, specifically pled that CytoDyn falsely and misleadingly told investors that its CD10 trial demonstrated that Leronlimab was effective against COVID-19, and it had not. It misleadingly failed to disclose information that would have completed the context of the statements it did make. CytoDyn's motion to dismiss Courter's Section 10b claim based on CytoDyn's CD10 statements is denied." -- CD12 Statements According to the court, "Courter has plausibly pled that a reasonable investor would be misled reading CytoDyn's statements, fairly and in context. CytoDyn's motion to dismiss Courter's Section 10b claims based on its CD12 statements is denied." -- PSLRA Safe Harbor, Opinion, and Puffery The court rejected CytoDyn's safe harbor defense, stating, "Statements that relate to events that already occurred, or which involve 'predictions' that were not possible based on information CytoDyn already had, are actionable. To the extent CytoDyn's safe harbor argument applies to the statements discussed above, its motion is denied." Regarding opinion and puffery, the court held, "Courter has plausibly pled that, in context, the speaker could not have subjectively believed the factual underpinnings CytoDyn's 'opinions;' the public statements did not fairly align with information in CytoDyn's possession. CytoDyn's motion to dismiss these statements as opinion is denied." Similarly, the Court agrees the same is true with respect to CytoDyn's argument that its statements reflected only "scientific disagreement" with the FDA. CytoDyn's motion to dismiss its statements as mere puffery is denied." -- Claims Against Kelly and Mulholland The court concluded, "Courter has plausibly pled that Mulholland had more than 'some role' in drafting allegedly false and misleading statements CytoDyn submitted to the SEC; he signed them, repeatedly. Courter's SAC and brief are also flush with other plausible allegations tying Kelly and Mulholland to CytoDyn's false and misleading statements. Kelly and Mulholland's motion to dismiss Courter's Section 10b claims (Count I) against them is denied." -- Stock Promotion Scheme (Count II) The court found, "Courter also plausibly alleges that CytoDyn's conduct in drafting, disseminating, and repeating statements that CytoDyn, Mulholland, Kelly, and Pourhassan knew were false, are inherently deceptive acts. CytoDyn's motion to dismiss Courter's Rule 10b-5(a&c) 'promotion scheme' claim (Count II) is denied." -- Control Person Liability (Count III) The court determined, "Courter has plausibly pled that Kelly, Mulholland, and Pourhassan 'controlled' CytoDyn and are thus liable under Section 20a for the company's Section 10b violations. The individual defendants' motion to dismiss this claim (Count III) is denied." -- Insider Trading (Count IV) Finally, the court ruled, "The lack of a separate scienter requirement for 20A claims also undermines Mulholland's claim that the pre-planned nature of his sale means he acted without discretion and thus without scienter. The motion to dismiss Courter's 20A claim (Count IV) is denied". A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZSMGOr EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Grimmett Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- FARREECE GRIMMETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPISOURCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05480 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information or and Protected Health Information of the Plaintiff and the Class Members. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect the Plaintiff and the Class's PII and PHI, from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII and PHI that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. Episource LLC develops health care software solutions. The Company offers analytics and medical record review platform that provides retrieval and coding, risk adjustment consulting, quality, and clinical services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle Perry, Esq. Reuben Aguirre, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: dperry@masonllp.com raguirre@masonllp.com FERRARA CANDY: Appeals Court Trims Data Breach Claims ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ervin Olson and Shawn Wesson, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ferrara Candy Company, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-24-1126 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025), Presiding Justice Lampkin of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County. The circuit court had granted Ferrara Candy Company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint under Section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim, dismissing the case with prejudice. The appellate court: -- reversed the dismissal of Olson's negligence claim and Wesson's negligence, breach of implied contract, and Consumer Fraud Act claims; -- affirmed the dismissal of Olson's breach of implied contract and Consumer Fraud Act claims due to forfeiture; and -- remanded the case for further proceedings. Ferrara Candy, a Chicago-based candy manufacturer, experienced a data breach between October 2 and October 9, 2021, where an unauthorized actor accessed its network and removed files containing personally identifiable information (PII), including names, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and financial account information. According to the court, Ferrara completed its investigation on March 30, 2022, and notified affected individuals, including Olson and Wesson, in April or May 2022. The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, alleging negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act). They claimed that Ferrara failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures, leading to the theft of their PII, which caused fraudulent charges, emotional distress, lost time, and costs for credit monitoring. Upon careful examination, the court addressed Ferrara's motion to dismiss under Section 2-615, which challenged the legal sufficiency of the complaint, and which raised the affirmative matter of lack of standing. The court first evaluated standing, noting that Illinois requires a plaintiff to demonstrate a distinct and palpable injury fairly traceable to the defendant's actions and redressable by the requested relief. Wesson alleged fraudulent charges on his credit union account and expenses for credit monitoring, which the court found constituted a concrete injury. For Olson, who did not allege actual misuse of his PII, the court determined that the imminent risk of future misuse, coupled with time spent monitoring accounts, sufficed as a concrete harm. The court concluded that both plaintiffs had standing, as their injuries were fairly traceable to Ferrara’s data breach and could be redressed by monetary relief. According to the court, to state a negligence claim, plaintiffs must allege a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and proximate causation of injuries. The plaintiffs alleged that Ferrara, as their employer, had a duty to safeguard their PII, which it breached by failing to implement adequate cybersecurity measures, such as stopping key cybersecurity infrastructure during evening hours. The court found that Wesson's allegations of fraudulent charges two months after the breach and both plaintiffs' time spent monitoring accounts established proximate cause and injury. Ferrara argued that the Moorman doctrine, which bars tort recovery for purely economic losses, precluded the negligence claims. However, the court held that the Moorman doctrine did not apply, as the duty to safeguard PII arose from common law, not a contract, and the injuries were not solely economic. Therefore, the circuit court erred in dismissing the negligence claims. Breach of Implied Contract Claim Wesson argued that an implied contract existed based on Ferrara's privacy policy, which promised to protect employee PII. The court found that Wesson sufficiently alleged the existence of an implied contract, as plaintiffs provided PII in reliance on Ferrara's representations, and Ferrara's conduct implied a duty to protect that information. Wesson's payment of $24.99 and $4.99 monthly for credit monitoring constituted measurable damages. Ferrara's contention that these damages were too attenuated was rejected, as they were a direct response to the breach. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal of Wesson's implied contract claim but affirmed the dismissal of Olson's claim due to forfeiture, as he did not raise it on appeal. Wesson alleged that Ferrara violated the Consumer Fraud Act by failing to maintain reasonable security measures under the Personal Information Protection Act. To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege a deceptive act, intent to induce reliance, occurrence in trade or commerce, actual damage, and proximate causation. The court found that Wesson's credit monitoring costs constituted calculable economic damages, and his allegations of causation mirrored those in the negligence claims, which were deemed sufficient. Therefore, the court reversed the dismissal of Wesson's Consumer Fraud Act claim but affirmed the dismissal of Olson's claim due to forfeiture. The court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Olson's breach of implied contract and Consumer Fraud Act claims due to forfeiture. However, it reversed the dismissal of Olson's negligence claim and Wesson's negligence, breach of implied contract, and Consumer Fraud Act claims, finding that the plaintiffs adequately pled these claims. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to address the remaining claims and class action issues. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YyjcbK GERBER PRODUCTS: Conry Suit Seeks to Compel Subpoena Duces Tecum ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS CONRY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Movants v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, et al., Defendants; TARGET CORPORATION, Non-Party Respondent, Case No. 0:25-mc-00038-JFD (D. Minn., June 16, 2025) moved for an order compelling Target Corporation to comply with Plaintiffs' subpoena duces tecum served on February 13, 2025. Gerber Products Company manufactures and sells baby food, as well as offers life and health insurance products. The Company produces baby foods that include fruits, vegetables, dry cereals, juices, and infant formula. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Bobby Pouya, Esq. Adrian J. Buonanoce, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 Email: bpouya@pwfirm.com abuonanoce@pwfirm.com ITS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification in BIPA Case Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- Justice Howse of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, affirmed the circuit court's order certifying a class of plaintiffs in the case captioned as MICHELLE MCGIVNEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ITS TECHNOLOGIES & LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 1-24-1961, appealed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Case No. 22 CH 08873. According to the appeals court, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the case meets the statutory prerequisites for class certification and that the plaintiff is an adequate class representative. Defendant ITS Technologies is a service provider in the railway industry including services such as loading and unloading of railcars, equipment maintenance and repairs, inventory management, and operations management. Plaintiff Michelle McGivney was employed by ITS Technologies from 2010 to 2018, with employment ceasing in 2018, but she returned to work at ITS Technologies from 2019 to 2021. During the period relevant to this case, ITS Technologies utilized timeclocks for keeping track of the hours worked by employees. The timeclocks used the employees' biometric information for identification. Plaintiff claims that ITS Technologies violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.) when using these timeclocks. Evidence presented during discovery, including a declaration from ITS Technologies' director of Human Resources, Norma Martinez, showed that ITS Technologies used NOVAtime timeclocks during the period relevant to this case, and those timeclocks work by scanning just a portion of an employee's fingerprint, not the entire hand. About four months into the period relevant to this case, ITS Technologies implemented a "consent at the clock" procedure that prompted workers before using the timeclock that they were required to agree to give consent to the usage of their biometric data before clocking in to work. In Illinois, an action may be maintained as a class action only if the court finds: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of fact or law common to the class, which common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; (3) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class; and (4) the class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Court's Analysis on Common Questions - Predominance The circuit court found that over 800 employees used the timeclock systems at issue during the relevant period and common questions clearly predominate. The court rejected ITS Technologies' arguments regarding plaintiff's claim that her hand was scanned rather than her finger, stating that "defendant does not deny that it collected plaintiff's biometric information in the same way as it did hundreds of other employees, which is the core issue of the case." The court explained that the test for predominance is not whether the common issues outnumber the individual ones, but whether common or individual issues will be the object of most of the efforts of the litigants and the court. The issue to be determined in the case is whether defendant improperly collected its employees' biometric information without obtaining written consent as required by the BIPA. Regarding the consent issue, the court found that employees who allegedly gave consent to ITS Technologies gave the alleged consent on identical terms, in response to identical prompts, at or around the same time. It is a common question among the class members whether their claims are vitiated by their putative consent. The court addressed defendant's argument that individualized damages among class members should have caused denial of class certification. Plaintiff specifically seeks a damages award for each violation of the BIPA in the amount set forth in the statute and makes no claim for any other actual damages. Although the number of potential violations will likely differ among members of the class, electronic records will provide the number of times each employee clocked in or out of work where biometric information was collected. The court noted that the General Assembly amended the BIPA to stipulate that a plaintiff is limited to recovering for a single violation of the BIPA even if the defendant collected the plaintiff's biometric information numerous times. The amendment provides that if a defendant "in more than one instance obtains the same biometric information from the same person using the same method of collection [the defendant] has committed a single violation for which the aggrieved person is entitled to, at most, one recovery." Collective Bargaining Agreement Issues Defendant argued that more than 250 of the 870 employees who are part of the class are members of collective bargaining units and their BIPA claims are preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. The court found that the issue of whether some of the class members' claims are preempted is not a predominating issue in the overall scope of the litigation. If defendant wishes to challenge a portion of the class's claims for dismissal based on preemption, it may do so, but there is no reason that the existence of the collective bargaining agreements would be an impediment to class-wide resolution of the predominant questions in the case. Adequacy of Class Representative The court found that plaintiff's interests are aligned with the other class members. Plaintiff, like all the other members of the class, is seeking statutory damages for violations of the BIPA based on defendant's alleged improper collection of her biometric data. The record demonstrates that plaintiff regularly communicates with class counsel about the litigation, has participated in written and oral discovery, and she demonstrated a working knowledge of the material facts and law when giving her deposition. The circuit court found that "plaintiff appears at least basically familiar with the key facts so as to be a sufficient representative." Defendant failed to show that the circuit court clearly abused its discretion when it found plaintiff to be an adequate class representative. Appropriateness of Class Action Method The court determined that proceeding as a class can best secure economies of time, effort, and expense and promote a uniformity of decision. The court addressed defendant's argument that class action treatment is not proper because of the potential for large damages awards, explaining that damages under the Act are discretionary, so that the circuit court was in a position to fashion an award that achieved the objectives of the Act: fairly compensating class members and deterring future violations, while not destroying the defendant's business. A copy of the Appeals Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RKgGa2 JOEL BIEBER: Roark Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY ROARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOEL BIEBER, LLC T/A THE JOEL BIEBER FIRM, Case No. 3:24-cv-00600-HEH (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying a collective action with the following classes: a. The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA") Conditional Class "Individuals employed by Defendant who, in any week during the period Aug. 26, 2021, through the present (i) performed attorney support staff duties; (ii) worked overtime (over 40 hours) in at least one workweek; and (iii) were not paid by the Defendant at the required time- and-one-half rate for all overtime worked over 40 hours each week." b. The Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA") Conditional Class "Individuals employed by the Defendant who, in any week during the period Aug. 26, 2021, through the present (i) performed attorney support staff duties; (ii) worked over 37 hours in at least one workweek; and (iii) were not paid by the Defendant for all compensable non-overtime (less than 40 hours) duties performed. 2. Directing the Defendant to produce the names, job titles, dates of employment, locations of employment, last known home addresses, cellular phone numbers, and personal e-mail addresses for each class member in an electronic form that can be used by Plaintiff for mailing, e-mailing, and/or text messaging the Court-approved Notice within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Order; 3. Authorizing the Notice and Consent Form included with Plaintiff's Motion to be immediately issued, upon receipt of the information Defendant is ordered to produce in paragraph 2, above, to all class members by first class mail (with self-addressed and stamped return envelopes), e-mail, and text message, at Plaintiff’s expense, including the proposed text for each text message, use of a website to display the notice and for electronic submission of consent forms, and proposed e-mail subject line; and In this action, the Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid wages, including proper premium overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 each week, and statutory damages for herself and other similarly situated individuals under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act. Joel is made up of skilled personal injury lawyers in Richmond, Virginia Beach, Greenville, Philadelphia, and Charleston. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DOQZY4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: rtucci@zagfirm.com ggreenberg@zagfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven D. Brown, Esq. Lindsey S. Komisin, Esq. Katherine L. Yourth, Esq. ISLERDARE P.C. 1111 East Main Street, Suite 1605 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 489-5500 Facsimile: (804) 234-8234 E-mail: sbrown@islerdare.com lkomisin@islerdare.com kyourth@islerdare.com JOHN MUIR: Class Action Settlement in Nado Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONAN NADO, v. JOHN MUIR HEALTH, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01632-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. A hearing (the "Fairness Hearing") shall be held before this Court on Dec. 11, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. 2. The following Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1): "All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and former members of the John Muir Health Retirement Committee during the Class Period. The Court appoints Conan Nado as representative for the Class and appoints Walcheske & Luzi, LLC and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, as counsel for the Class. John Muir is a hospital network headquartered in Walnut Creek, California. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f4AtdS at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON HEALTH: Calderon Sues Over Defective Dumbbell Products -------------------------------------------------------------- ALAN CALDERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON HEALTH TECH TRADING, INC.; and BOWFLEX INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00513 (W.D. Wis., June 17, 2025) in action against the Defendant concerning its deceptively dangerous dumbbells product and its inadequate recall efforts. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") announced the recall of roughly 3,844,200 BowFlex 552, 52.5 LB and BowFlex 1090, 90 LB Adjustable Dumbbells (the "Products"). Consumers were warned to "immediately stop using the recalled Bowflex adjustable dumbbells" because the Products' weight "plates can dislodge during use." The Defendants refuse to refund customers that purchased the Products. Instead, the Defendants implemented a deficient recall that allows them to say they are doing the right thing, when in fact the primary objective is to protect their bottom line. By design, the recall received very little publication, with the result that the response rate has been low. And, an offer of a voucher that can only be used to purchase another product from Defendants, guarantees that customers who have lost faith in Defendants' products, or who do not want to risk being injured by dislodged weight plates, are left with no recourse, says the suit. Johnson Health Tech Trading, Inc. manufactures and markets a variety of fitness equipment for institutional club as well as home use. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Suite 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: Brittany@skclassactions.com JOHNSON HEALTH: Cosin Sues Over Mislabeled Dumbbell Products ------------------------------------------------------------ ELIZABETH M. COSIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON HEALTH TECH RETAIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-05085-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2025) alleges that the Defendant sells a defective dumbbells products. According to the complaint, the Defendant and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") announced the recall of roughly 3.8 million BowFlex branded Model 552, 52.5 LB Adjustable Dumbbells and Model 1090, 90 LB Adjustable Dumbbells. Consumers were warned to "immediately stop using the recalled Bowflex adjustable dumbbells" because the Products' "weight plates can dislodge from the handle during use, posing an impact hazard." The Plaintiff and other customers who purchased the Products prior to April 23, 2024, are not being offered replacement dumbbells or full refund voucher. Instead, the Defendant has arbitrarily limited those customers -- who account for approximately 3.7 million (i.e., 96%) of the affected Products -- to the wholly inadequate option of requesting a prorated voucher and a one-year membership to Defendant's digital fitness app, says the suit. Johnson Health Tech Retail, Inc. manufactures and markets a variety of fitness equipment for institutional club as well as home use. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 305 Broadway, Suite 713 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (646) 964-9604 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: fklorczyk@kamberlaw.com - and - Deborah Kravitz, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 401 Center St., Suite 111 Healdsburg, CA 95448 Telephone: (707) 820-4247 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com LEGACY HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Foley Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JEFFERY FOLEY; JULIANNE GRIFFIN; RANDY REYES; and SHLONDA WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEGACY HEALTH; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LEGACY HEALTH; and THE LEGACY HEALTH RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01041-AN (D. Or., June 17, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants breached the duties owed to the Legacy Health 403(b) Plan, and the Legacy Health Defined Contribution Retirement Plan Plans, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plans by, inter alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plans' investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. Legacy Health operates as a hospital. The Hospital offers behavioral health, orthopedics, pain management, physical therapy, drug testing, cancer and wound care, urology, and pediatric services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neil P. Halttunen, Esq. JARVIS BRIDGE HALTTUNEN & WEYER LLC 484 NE Bovard Avenue Dallas, OR 97338 Telephone: (503) 623-6676 Email: halt@jbhwlaw.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com LIEBERMAN MANAGEMENT: Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Case Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Martin of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the consumer fraud claim in the case captioned as DEBORAH GREENSWAG, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE FRANKLIN P. FRIEDMAN LIVING TRUST, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIEBERMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-24-0289. The court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In October 2016, Franklin P. Friedman contracted to sell his unit located in the Mission Hills Condominiums in Northbrook, Illinois. As required by section 22.1(a) of the Condominium Property Act, Friedman needed to provide disclosure documents to the prospective buyer. Friedman requested the disclosure documents from Lieberman Management, who had been retained by the Mission Hills Condominium Association to act as its agent in managing the condominium property. Lieberman Management provided the requested disclosure documents through their vendor condocerts.com at a cost of $445. Friedman believed he had been overcharged for the documents. On December 8, 2016, Friedman filed a three-count class action complaint against Lieberman Management. Count I alleged that Lieberman Management violated section 22.1(c) of the Act by charging unit sellers unreasonable fees. Count II alleged that the violation constituted an unfair business practice in violation of section 2 of the Consumer Fraud Act. Count III alleged restitution/unjust enrichment and was pled as an alternative to counts I and II. The trial court initially denied dismissal of the section 22.1(c) claim in count I, dismissed the consumer fraud claim in count II with leave to replead, and dismissed the restitution claim in count III with prejudice. Following multiple amendments and procedural developments, Deborah Greenswag, as successor trustee, filed a second amended complaint in December 2019. On April 1, 2021, the trial court dismissed count I with prejudice, finding that section 22.1(c) did not provide an implied cause of action in favor of a condominium seller against a property manager. The court denied dismissal of the consumer fraud claim in count II. The case was significantly impacted by the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Channon v. Westward Management, Inc., 2022 IL 128040. The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that "section 22.1 of the Condominium Property Act does not create an implied private right of action by a unit seller against an agent of a condominium association or its board of managers for allegedly violating the fee limitations set forth in section 22.1(c)." During the pendency of the case, the legislature amended section 22.1(c) to provide that "A reasonable fee, not to exceed $375, covering the direct out-of-pocket cost of providing such information and copying may be charged by the association or its Board of Managers to the unit seller for providing such information. An association may charge an additional $100 for rush service completed within 72 hours." Following the statute's amendment, Lieberman Management filed a motion to reconsider. On January 26, 2024, the trial court entered a memorandum opinion and order dismissing the consumer fraud claim by retroactively applying the amended version of section 22.1(c). The trial court found that the amended language "not to exceed $375" resolved the ambiguity by clarifying "that a reasonable fee is less than $375 plus $100 for any rush services." The trial court concluded that the allegations against Lieberman Management were insufficient to establish a consumer fraud claim premised on unfairness, where the statute expressly allowed a condominium association to charge condominium sellers a maximum fee of $475 and Friedman was charged a total of $445. The trial court granted Lieberman Management's motion for reconsideration and dismissed the consumer fraud claim in count II with prejudice. The Appellate Court reviewed the sufficiency of the complaint under section 2-615 of the Code, accepting as true all well-pleaded facts and construing allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The court applied de novo review to the trial court's grant of the motion to dismiss. According to the Appeals Court, for a Consumer Fraud Act claim, a plaintiff must allege "(1) a deceptive act or practice by the defendant, (2) the defendant's intent that the plaintiff rely on the deception, (3) the occurrence of the deception in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce, and (4) actual damage to the plaintiff (5) proximately caused by the deception." Here, no deception was alleged. Instead, Greenswag contended charging excessive fees was unfair. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that section 22.1(c) does not provide condominium sellers with either an express or implied private right of action to challenge fees charged by property managers acting on behalf of condominium associations. The Appellate Court noted that the legislature's amendment clarified what constitutes a "reasonable fee" under section 22.1(c) and placed a cap of $475 as the maximum fee a condominium association can charge unit sellers to obtain statutorily required disclosure documents. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LGKqsV LOWES COMPANIES: Mismanages Retirement Fund, Denny Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- RANDY DENNY; and MICHELE GOLEMBECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOWES COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00088 (W.D.N.C., June 16, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendant controls the administration of the tobacco surcharge, determining which participants are charged and withholding the surcharge amounts directly from participants' paychecks. These amounts are not placed in a trust account for the Plan but are instead deposited into Lowes' general accounts. By retaining these funds, Lowes earns interest on the withheld surcharges and reduces its own financial contributions to the Plan. This practice constitutes self-dealing and violates ERISA's fiduciary duty requirements, which mandate that Plan assets be managed exclusively in the interest of participants and beneficiaries. The Defendant has fiduciary responsibilities to ensure that these funds are used to support coverage for participants' health insurance. Instead, by charging and collecting this unlawful surcharge, Defendant increased its own bottom line allowing it to realize financial benefits it would not have otherwise realized without imposing these surcharges, in violation of ERISA's fiduciary duty standards. In sum, these practices demonstrate that Defendant's wellness program is an unreasonable, revenue-generating scheme disguised as a health initiative, directly contravening ERISA's requirements and purpose, says the suit. Lowes Companies, Inc. operates as a home improvement store. The Company offers tools, appliances, building supplies, carpet, bathroom, and lighting products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com META PIXEL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, Case No. 5:22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order modifying class certification briefing deadlines as follows: Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Aug. 18, 2025 Meta's Opposition to Class Certification: Oct. 27, 2025 The Plaintiffs' Reply Brief: Dec. 15, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sNZubx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02216 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com mliskow@4-justice.com eservice@4-justice.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Marshal J. Hoda, Esq. THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC 12333 Sowden Road, Suite B Houston, TX 77080 Telephone: (832) 848-0036 E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com - and - Patrick Yarborough, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 220 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 331-5254 E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Caroline A. Lebel, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com clebel@cooley.com OLYMPUS GROUP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Green Due May 20, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SCOTT GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OLYMPUS GROUP, INC. Case No. 2:24-cv-01519-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order following scheduling conference: 1. The parties shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) concerning initial disclosures on or before June 18, 2025. 2. The parties may join additional parties and amend pleadings without further leave of court through Oct. 15, 2025. 3. The parties shall disclose class certification expert witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2) on or before Feb. 25, 2026. Any class certification rebuttal reports shall be served on or before March 25, 2026. Any class certification expert depositions shall be completed on or before April 22, 2026. 4. The plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification on or before May 20, 2026. The Defendant shall file its opposition on or before June 17, 2026, and plaintiff may file a reply on or before July 15, 2026. 5. The court will schedule further proceedings after the motion for conditional certification is decided. 6. The court expects counsel to confer and make a good faith effort to settle the case. The foregoing schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the court. Olympus is engaged in the custom printing and sewing industry, specializing in large format digital and dye-sublimation printing. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SbVqCv at no extra charge.[CC] PERMIAN RESOURCES: Basinski Sues Over Crude Oil Monopoly -------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BASINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; EXPAND ENERGY CORPORATION f/k/a CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; and EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00568 (D.N.M., June 17, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful conspiracy to coordinate and restrict production of domestic shale oil, which fixed, raised, maintained and/or stabilized the price of light sweet crude oil throughout the United States. The Defendants' conspiracy raised, fixed, maintained and/or stabilized prices of Crude Oil Futures and Options during the period from at least January 1, 2021 to the present ("the Class Period") in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Permian Resources Corporation operates as an oil and gas company. The Company focuses on the development of unconventional oil and associated liquid-rich natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin, as well as offers geology, engineering, and drilling services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent J. Ward, Esq. THE WARD LAW FIRM P.O. Box 7940 Albuquerque, NM 87194 Telephone: (505) 944-9454 Email: vincent@wardlaw.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Raymond Girnys, Esq. Peter Demato, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com - and - Christopher Burke, Esq. Kate Lv, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-8244 Email: cburke@burke.law klv@burke.law - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 2020 Salzedo Street Suite 302 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 Email: MCriden@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com - and - Jeffrey B. Kaplan, Esq. DIMOND KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH-2B Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 374-1920 Email: jkaplan@dkrpa.com RAMP BUSINESS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bernstein Due Nov. 18 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE BERNSTEIN, v. RAMP BUSINESS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-09595-JGK-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky entered an order revising the schedule as follows: -- The Plaintiff's expert disclosures July 14, 2025 are due: -- The Defendant's expert disclosures Aug. 26, 2025 are due: -- Rebuttal disclosures are due: Sept. 10, 2025 -- All class-related discovery, Oct. 30, 2025 including expert discovery, is due: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class Nov. 18, 2025 certification is due: -- The Defendant's opposition is due: Dec. 29, 2025 -- The Plaintiff's reply is due: Jan. 30, 2026 Ramp is a multinational financial technology company that offers corporate charge cards, expense management, and bill-payment software. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TLtfPj at no extra charge.[CC] SALESFORCE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Young Due Sept. 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE YOUNG, LANAE JOHNSON, and PEARL MAGPAYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SALESFORCE INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-09067-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order extending case schedule as follows: Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Sept. 5, 2025 and Plaintiffs' expert disclosures for all experts due: The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' Dec. 22, 2025 motion for class certification, the Defendants' expert disclosures, and Defendants' Daubert motions: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Feb. 9, 2026 for class certification, the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant's Daubert motions, and the Plaintiffs' Daubert motions: The Defendant's reply in support of its Daubert March 19, 2026 motions and the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' Daubert motions: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their April 9, 2026 Daubert motions: Salesforce provides applications focused on sales, customer service, marketing automation, e-commerce, analytics, artificial intelligence, and application development. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xg6928 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Israel Rosenberg, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Emani N. Oakley, Esq. Katie Viggiani, Esq. Elisabeth Hutchinson, Esq. Erik Manukyan, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: TCheung@mofo.com EOakley@mofo.com KViggiani@mofo.com EHutchinson@mofo.com EManukyan@mofo.com STAPLES THE OFFICE: Class Cert Filing in Giordani Due May 11, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kristofer Giordani v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC et al. (IN RE STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE, LLC LITIGATION), Case No. 5:24-cv-02224-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=PrJmLE at no extra charge.[CC] STAPLES THE OFFICE: Class Cert Filing in Lumadue Due May 11, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maraya Lumadue v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC et al. (IN RE STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE, LLC LITIGATION), Case No. 2:25-cv-00028-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=NaisdI at no extra charge.[CC] SUWANNEE VALLEY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 9, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES R. THOMAS, et al., and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v. SUWANNEE VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01213-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Schlesinger entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to amend case management and scheduling order: -- The class certification related discovery Dec. 2, 2025 deadline is extended to: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification Jan. 9, 2026 Motions deadline is extended to: -- The Defendants' Response to class March 6, 2026 Certification motions is extended to: -- The deadline for participation in April 15, 2026 Mediation is extended to: Suwannee is a nonprofit rural electric cooperative that serves the residents of the Suwannee River Valley in Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=93EHdn at no extra charge.[CC] SWEET BRAZIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fernandes Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JHONE DA SILVA FERNANDES; and EDUARDO LOURENCO CONSTANTINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SWEET BRAZIL MARKET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11767 (D. Mass., June 17, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendant as kitchen employees. Sweet Brazil Market, Inc. owns and controls a restaurant located at Weymouth, MA under the name "Sweet Brazil Market and Grill". [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Olayiwola O. Oduyingbo, Esq. Ana Barros, Esq. ODU LAW FIRM, LLC 888 Reservoir Avenue, Floor 2 Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 209-2029 Facsimile: (401) 217-2299 Email: Odu@odulawfirm.com abarros@odulawfirm.com TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Court OK's Protective Order Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Howington v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-05684-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for a protective order requiring their depositions to proceed either: (1) via videoconference or (2) in-person near the Plaintiffs' residences, grouped together so that multiple depositions can be completed over the course of one or multiple weeks. The Plaintiffs argue that their depositions should be taken remotely. But defendants should not be compelled to forego their right to an in-person examination of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert that they have modest economic means, and that traveling to San Jose would be a financial hardship. But plaintiffs' burden of proof on that issue is high; and they offer no evidence whatsoever. Taiwan is a multinational semiconductor contract manufacturing and design company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YIi6r5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kotchen, Esq. Daniel Low, Esq. Lindsey Grunert, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1918 New Hampshire Ave NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 The Defendants are represented by: Fletcher C. Alford, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 TAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in McLaughlin Due Dec. 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as McLaughlin, et al., v. Taylor University, Case No. 1:23-cv-00527 (N.D. Ind., Filed Dec. 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Holly A. Brady entered an order granting proposed joint amended case management plan: -- The Plaintiff expert witness Sept. 25, 2025 disclosures and reports to be delivered to the Defendant by: -- The Defendant expert witness Nov. 20, 2025 disclosures and reports to be delivered to the plaintiff by: -- The Deadline for Plaintiffs to Dec. 21, 2025 move for class certification is: -- Fact Discovery deadline is: July 23, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Taylor University is a private, interdenominational, evangelical Christian university in Upland, Indiana.[CC] TIFFANY AND COMPANY: Schavrien Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ryan Schavrien, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIFFANY AND COMPANY and TIFFANY AND COMPANY U.S. SALES, LLC, Case No. 25STCV14796 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-05611. The Complaint alleges that Defendants operate the website, tiffany.com "(the 'Website')" and installed tracking pixels from TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, and Pinterest "(the 'Tracking Tools')" to track Website visitors' actions, behavior, and conversations across the Website. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Tracking Tools are "'trap and trace' devices" installed without a court order, and that Defendants "did not obtain Plaintiff's or Class Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing," in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carlie Bacon, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1125 NW Couch Street, Suite 500 Portland, Oregon 97209 Phone: 503-343-6475 Facsimile: 503-343-6476 Email: CBacon@ebglaw.com TIM TIPTON: NRSOL Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tim Tipton. The case is styled as National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws previously named as National Association for Rational Sex Offense Laws, OK Voices Inc., Clayton Hamilton, Cameron Gray, Cedric Barnes, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. Tim Tipton, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety; Getner Drummond, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of Oklahoma; Case No. 4:25-cv-00312-SH (N.D. Okla., June 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Tim Tipton was appointed as Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Mikel Dunn, Esq. JOHN M. DUNN LAW OFFICE PLLC 616 S Main Ste. 206 Tulsa, OK 74119 Phone: (918) 526-8000 Fax: (918) 359-5050 Email: jmdunn@johndunnlaw.com TRUE RELIGION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 5, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMANA NURI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRUE RELIGION APPAREL, INC. and TRUE RELIGION SALES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00690-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered a Rule 16(B) and Rule 23(D)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Deadline to join additional parties: Nov. 20, 2025 All motions related to fact discovery Jan. 23, 2026 must be filed by: Deadline to complete fact discovery: Feb. 27, 2026 Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion for June 5, 2026 class certification: Deadline for the Defendants to file response July 7, 2026 to motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply in July 21, 2026 support of motion for class certification: True manufactures, and markets apparel. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XkkUJs at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY SHOPPES: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY SHOPPES SUMMIT, LLC; P & Y FOOD SERVICE LLC; TASTY POT INC; J-PETAL POKE BOWL & CREPE INC.; and RAF & ROD INVESTMENT GROUP INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-22722-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 16, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property located at 1615 SW 107th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33165 is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. University Shoppes Summit, LLC is a retail destination in Miami, FL that offers a variety of products and services catering to the local community. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com US DERMATOLOGY: Olson Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------- Tammy Olson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. DERMATOLOGY PARTNERS, Case No. 3:25-cv-01595-S (N.D. Tex., June 21, 2025), is brought as a result of the Data Breach due to the Defendants failure to implement necessary and expected monitoring, alerting, and data loss prevention tools to stop the Data Breach. The Defendant collects a significant amount of data including personally identifiable information including patient names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers; financial account information ("PII"); and protected health information ("PHI") including health insurance information, provider name, and other treatment information (collectively, the "Private Information"). On June 19, 2024, the Defendant experienced a network disruption and upon investigation discovered that an unauthorized party accessed the Defendant's network systems and transferred certain files to an external destination. This resulted in a double-extortion ransomware attack on its systems in which hackers infiltrated the Defendant's information systems, performed reconnaissance operations, identified and stole valuable files containing the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, and then encrypted Defendant's systems. Given that the Defendant did not notice that it had been infiltrated until the hackers announced themselves by disrupting the Defendant' information systems, it is likely that the Defendant failed to implement necessary and expected monitoring, alerting, and data loss prevention tools that would have identified the malicious activity in a timelier manner. Because of the Defendant' failures, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered a severe invasion of their privacy and must now face a substantial increase in identity theft and financial fraud for years to come, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's Private Information, including PHI, was provided to Defendant. The Defendant is one of the "largest dermatology practices in the country, caring for more than 2 million patients each year with over 100 locations across eight states including Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virgina."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste. 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: 214-744-3000 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com WISCONSIN DOC: State High Court Flips Denial of Class Status Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action captioned as NICOLE MCDANIEL, et al., v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, No. 2022AP1759, 2025 WI 24 (Wis. June 24, 2025), Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz of the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed a court of appeals decision and remanded the case to the circuit court. The High court ruled that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in certifying the class and clarified that courts should not consider the merits of underlying claims when assessing class certification requirements. This case involves a certified class action lawsuit brought by Department of Corrections officers Nicole McDaniel and Matthew Davis against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. The plaintiffs sought certification for a class defined as "All current and former non-exempt, hourly-paid DOC employees who worked as security personnel in a correctional institution (including but not limited to Correctional Officers and Correctional Sergeants) in the State of Wisconsin at any time during the period starting two years before this action commenced through the date of judgment." The Wisconsin Department of Corrections employs approximately 5,000 corrections officers at 37 prisons across the state. The officers alleged that they are owed compensation for time spent in correctional facilities before and after their shifts, including activities such as passing bags through X-ray machines, reporting to supervisors, proceeding through secured gates, and obtaining equipment like keys, radios, and pepper spray. McDaniel contended that the pre- and post-shift activities are "integral and indispensable" to a correctional officer's principal activities and thus are compensable under Wisconsin regulations. She argued that officers should be compensated for all time spent in the prisons because they must remain vigilant and may need to respond to emergency situations at all times while in the facilities. The plaintiffs presented expert testimony from Dr. William Rogers, who proposed a method to calculate damages by reviewing security footage to determine when officers enter and leave prison facilities. The expert would calculate the time officers spend in the prisons before and after their shifts by comparing arrival and departure times with the beginning and end of their shifts. The circuit court granted McDaniel's motion for class certification, determining that she made a "plausible" argument that the officers are entitled to compensation for the pre- and post-shift activities. The court found that the class met all requirements for class certification under Wisconsin Statute Section 803.08(1)(a)-(d) and (2)(c), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court's class certification decision. The appellate court focused on the overlap between the merits and the requirements of commonality and typicality, stating that "a consideration of the merits of this case cannot be separated from the preliminary procedural question concerning certification of the proposed class action." The court of appeals reviewed whether McDaniel's claims for compensation "remain viable" under substantive law and determined that the employees' pre- and post-shift activities "are not compensable." Therefore, the appeals court concluded that the class-certification requirements of commonality and typicality were not met. The Wisconsin Supreme Court clarified that courts should not consider the viability of the class's claim on the merits when assessing the class-certification requirements of commonality and typicality. Justice Protasiewicz wrote that the court followed the approach established in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, which held that courts have "no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage." The Supreme Court distinguished this case from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, explaining that while class-certification analysis may involve some "overlap" with the merits, courts may not analyze the viability of the merits claim. The court emphasized that "there is a difference between identifying whether a common question exists and deciding its answer." Commonality Requirement The Supreme Court found that McDaniel presented a common question regarding compensability: whether the officers' pre- and post-shift work is sufficiently "integral and indispensable" to the shift work to be compensable. The court determined that answering this compensability question would "resolve an issue that is central to" the DOC's liability "in one stroke." The court noted that even one common question is sufficient for commonality under the statute. Typicality, Predominance, and Superiority The Supreme Court found that the claims of the class representatives arose from the same course of conduct as other class members and were based on the same legal theory, satisfying the typicality requirement. For predominance, the court determined that the common question of compensability predominated over individual issues such as damage calculations and the application of the de minimis doctrine. Regarding superiority, the Supreme Court concluded that a class action was superior to individual wage claims because it provided a more fair and efficient way to handle the controversy for thousands of officers. Final Ruling The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court emphasized that "at the class certification stage, a court's role is not to adjudicate the case; rather, it is to select the method best suited to adjudication of the controversy fairly and efficiently." Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, agreeing with the majority that the court of appeals must be reversed but disagreeing with the majority's decision to address the DOC's other arguments that the court of appeals never addressed. She would have remanded the case to the court of appeals to address those arguments in the first instance. ********* 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 ***