250710.mbx

250710.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 10, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 137 Headlines 6TH MERIDIAN: Brewer Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ACADEMY OF AVIATION: Faces Feroz Over Flight Training Programs AIR HAIFA: Sued Over Misleading Cancelled Flight Tickets' Refund AMAZON.COM INC: Revised Civil Case Management Plan Entered AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Seeks to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Report APPLE INC: Must Oppose Hughes Class Cert Bid t by August 1 ASP ISOTOPES: Leone Suit Seeks to Certify Class ASTRO AI: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mini Fridge Safety Risk BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod BIOGEN INC: Shash Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Investors BRIGHTFARMS INC: Smith Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES: Equal Website Access for Blind Users Sought CARISMA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Merger With OrthoCellix CAT5 COMMUNICATIONS: Order Setting Scheduling Conference Entered CENTRE STREET: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Cheli Alleges CINEMARK USA: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Waldrop Class Suit Nixed COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Court Narrows Claims in Esquibel Suit CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Russell Seeks Technicians' Unpaid OT CONSTRUCTION MASTERS: McLaughlin Seeks Flaggers' Unpaid Overtime COSTA DEL MAR: Reed Suit Seeks Class Certification DAVILA NY: Torres and Genaro Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages DELTA STAR: Class Cert Hearing in Wilson Continued to July 30 DELTA STAR: Has Until July 30 to Oppose Class Cert Bid DIGNITY HEALTH: Appeals Court Affirms Class Suit Decertification DONALD TRUMP: Casa "Birthright" Suit Seeks to Certify Class DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification OK'd DONALD TRUMP: Sarah Suit Seeks Class Certification EASY ICE: Suit Ayala Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Obringer Says ELLIS HOSPITAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 17, 2026 EPIC GAMES: Agrees to Settle Fortnite Class Suit for $126-Mil. EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Black Says EQT CORP: Agrees to Settle Investors Class Suit for $167.5 Million FCA US: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to May 15, 2026 FEVID TRANSPORT: Court Approves Modified Class Notice FRANK BRUNCKHORST: Court Wants ADA Complaint Amended FUBOTV INC: Agrees to $3.4M Data Privacy Class Action Settlement GENERAL MOTORS: Agrees to Settle Defective Engine Suit for $150M GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Court Decertifies Class Action Lawsuit GEP CENEX: Faces Robideau Suit in Calif. Over Labor Code Violations GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Capsules' False Ads GOOGLE LLC: Must Pay $314.6MM to Settle Android Users' Suit GPM INVESTMENTS: Myers Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages GRANITE CITY: Court Upholds Vehicle Impoundment Fee Ordinance GUARANTY BANCSHARES: M&A Investigates Sale to Glacier Bancorp HAZA FOODS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due March 6, 2026 HUNGRY POT: Court Denies Motion to Strike Class Allegations IDAHO: Davids Sues Over Beneficiaries' Immigration Status Proof INTEL CORPORATION: Berkeley Wins Class Cert Bid JAKO ENTERPRISES: General Pretrial Management Order Entered JOHN PAUL: Heagney Wins Bid for Class Certification KELLROE LLC: Estevez Class Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL KENVUE BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Falsely Labeled Aveeno Products KRISPY KREME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McLaughlin Says MARINHEALTH MEDICAL: $3-MM Deal in Data Privacy Suit Gets Prelim OK MCLAREN HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Ferszt Says META PLATFORMS: Faces Lee Privacy Suit Over Tracking Tools MEYER BURGER: Gilbert Seeks 60 Days' Wages Under WARN Act MICROGENICS CORP: Seeks Denial of Moreland Class Cert Bid MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit MICROSOFT CORP: Bird Sues Over Flagrant and Harmful Infringements MIKDARL INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sartori Suit Says NEVADA RESTAURANT: Settlement Class in Sanguinetti Gets Final Nod NEXT HEALTH MANAGEMENT: J.C. Files Suit in C.D. California NVIDIA CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 31, 2026 PACIFICORP: Filing for Class Cert Bids in McGuire Due Dec. 18 PDX AROMATICS: Faces W.G. Suit Over Mislabeled Kratom Products PETCO HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 29 PHARMACARE U.S.: Court Finds No Consumer Deception in Products PINTAIL ALTERNATIVE: Cumbie Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA & NMMWA PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Kuhk Seeks to Certify Two Classes POTENCIA DELI: Martinez Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL POWER SECURITY: Zewdu Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 18 RITCHIE TRUCKING: Surreply on Settlement Notice Ordered in Imber SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Dolgicer Over 8.01% Stock Price Drop SELIP & STYLIANOU: Tomaine Loses Bid for Summary Judgment SIMPLISAFE INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Alleges SOLEIL COLLECTIVE: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Ballardo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SONOS INC: App Redesign Affects Devices' Performance, Goodrow Says STEPHEN F. AUSTIN: Discriminates Female Student Athletes, Suit Says SUN ENERGY: Lawrence Seeks Class Certification SUSNJ INC: Chen Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA TD BANK: Stevens Class Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice TRIDENT MARITIME: Settlement Deal in Jefferson Gets Initial Nod TTE TECHNOLOGY INC: Bid for Class Cert in Herrick Due Oct. 24 UCM MEDICAL: Faces McCullar Suit Over Private Data Breach UNITED STATES: Appalachian Voices Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Ewing Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action UNITED STATES: Snow Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice UNITED WHOLESALE: Discloses Customers Info to Meta, Allison Says VESYNC CORP: Chen Suit Seeks to File Docs Under Seal VIA RENEWABLES: Clark Seeks to Certify Class Action WALMART INC: Sued Over Discriminatory Use of Criminal Records WAWA INC: 3rd Cir Upholds Settlement, $3.2MM Fee Award WESTGATE RESORTS: Bid Exclude Nusbaum's Opinions Granted in Part WESTGATE RESORTS: Bid to Exclude Werner's Opinions Granted in Part Y-MABS THERAPEUTICS: Class Fund Distribution in Securities Case OKd YORK WALLCOVERINGS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $225,000 ********* 6TH MERIDIAN: Brewer Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Landon Brewer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 6TH MERIDIAN SPECIALTIES LLC D/B/A PHOENIX MINING, Case No. 1:25-cv-02031-DDD (D. Colo., June 30, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one half-the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek. Specifically, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees to suit into protective clothing and safety gear (personal protective equipment, hereafter "PPE") necessary to safely perform their job duties and travel into the mines also known as "donning," while on mining premises without compensation, prior to being "clocked in." Similarly, the Defendant requires Brewer and other hourly paid mining employees to remove and store PPE and wash up, also known as "doffing," without compensation, or while "clocked out." This pre/post shift off the clock work policy of the Defendant's violates the FLSA by depriving the Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees of overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours per workweek for the Defendant. The Plaintiff's weekly work schedule typically encompassed at minimum 44 hours per workweek. However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on September of 2023. The Defendant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Phone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com ACADEMY OF AVIATION: Faces Feroz Over Flight Training Programs -------------------------------------------------------------- TAHMID FEROZ, ADONIS BUNCH, MANUEL DE JESUS RODRIGUEZ MENDEZ, LAVON THOMAS, and FURUI ZHOU individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated V. ACADEMY OF AVIATION LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03559 (E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2025) is a class action against AOA in connection with its systematic pattern of deceptive, fraudulent, and discriminatory practices in the marketing, enrollment, and provision of flight training programs at the Company's multiple locations across the United States. According to the complaint, AOA operates flight schools in multiple states (including New York, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida) and advertises various accelerated pilot training programs that promise completion of multiple pilot certifications within compressed timeframes. In reality, AOA has knowingly enrolled far more students than its fleet of aircraft and instructors can accommodate, making it impossible for students to complete their programs within the advertised and contractually promised durations. In fact, AOA's business model depends on students "timing out" of the initial fixed-cost program periods and then being forced to pay additional fees or incur more debt to continue training, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Feroz is an individual residing in New York. Mr. Feroz enrolled in AOA First Flight to First Officer. AOA is a flight training school with locations in New York, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida, offering various flight training programs, including PPL, IR, CPS, CFI, and accelerated "Zero-to-Hero" programs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. Benjamin D. Baker, Esq. NEWMAN FERRARA LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 619-5400 E-mail: jnorton@nfllp.com bbaker@nfllp.com AIR HAIFA: Sued Over Misleading Cancelled Flight Tickets' Refund ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Wrobel of Times of Israel reports that Israeli airlines Air Haifa and Arkia are facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly misleading their customers into accepting a refund for their canceled flight tickets during the 12-day war with Iran, and then selling new tickets at exorbitant prices. According to the separately filed requests for class action approval, the two airlines allegedly violated consumer protection and aviation laws. Arkia and Air Haifa are accused of offering customers, whose flights had been canceled due to the Iran conflict, a refund only, while concealing or omitting the legal entitlement to provide them with the option of an alternative flight. As stipulated in the provisions of the Aviation Services Law, a customer whose flight has been canceled is entitled to choose between two main options: a monetary refund of the purchased ticket or an alternative flight. Israel's airspace remained largely closed during the 12 days of conflict with Iran that began on June 13, leading to waves of flight cancellations that left many stranded abroad. As part of a government-led operation, on June 18, Israeli airlines El Al, Arkia, Air Haifa, and Israir started to operate restricted repatriation flights to bring back an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 Israelis stuck abroad. In the two class actions, the plaintiffs allege that Arkia and Air Haifa informed their passengers of flight cancellations, sent them a notice by SMS-text messaging that they would receive a full monetary refund, and opened bookings for repatriation flights to all stranded Israeli travelers at far higher prices than the original canceled flight tickets. Meanwhile, Israel's flag carrier El Al offered to customers whose tickets were canceled during the Iran conflict and were stranded abroad the option to be assigned seats on repatriation flights at no additional cost. "Unfortunately, while some airlines chose to stand by their customers in their difficult time, Arkia and Air Haifa decided to choose for their customers to receive a refund and enrich themselves at their expense," Attorney Ehud Gery, who represents the plaintiffs in both class action lawsuits, told The Times of Israel. For now, in both class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs are seeking compensation of more than NIS 2.5 million ($742,000) from each airline. In response, Air Haifa rejected the class action lawsuit as "predictable and unjustified," saying it "does not reflect the reality and the company’s efforts throughout the complex period." "Since the outbreak of the [Iran] war, Air Haifa has acted responsibly and transparently, with great dedication to help every passenger get home," Air Haifa said. "We initiated the placement of passengers on repatriation flights, even without receiving a request from the customer, and all this out of a sense of mission." "We will examine the request in its entirety and respond accordingly," Air Haifa added. In response to the class action suit, Arkia stated that "since the beginning of the war, Arkia has been operating around the clock to bring Israelis home." "The lawsuit has not yet been received, and once it is -- we will respond accordingly," the carrier said. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Revised Civil Case Management Plan Entered ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CD REISS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-05923-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon entered a revised civil case management plan and scheduling order. 1. Unless a party amends a pleading as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), amended pleadings may not be filed and additional parties may not be joined except with leave of the Court. Any motion for leave to amend or join additional parties shall be filed no later than Jan. 12, 2026. 2. Rolling document productions shall begin by July 25, 2025. The parties shall reach agreement on search terms and custodians by July 25, 2025. 3. The Plaintiff's class certification motion and supporting expert disclosures shall be filed no later than Aug. 10, 2026. The Defendant's class certification opposition and supporting expert disclosures shall be filed no later than Nov. 16, 2026. The Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification and supporting expert disclosures shall be filed no later than Jan. 8, 2027. All expert discovery, including expert reports and depositions, shall be completed no later than Jan. 30, 2027. 4. All discovery must be completed no later than Jan. 30, 2027. 5. The Court will conduct a post-discovery pre-trial conference on Mar. 3, 2027. Amazon.com is a multinational technology company primarily known for its e-commerce and cloud computing services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oIzrls at no extra charge.[CC] AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Seeks to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Report --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA TERRELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL, INC., NASHVILLE WIRE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, and MID-SOUTH WIRE COMPANY, LLC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00653 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to strike the Plaintiff's expert report prepared in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the report of Dr. Baum and any mention of or reliance on such should be stricken in its entirety from the record and the Plaintiff should be forbidden to rely on any statement or opinion of Dr. Baum in her arguments in support of the Plaintiff's Motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed suit on June 27, 2023, as a putative class action, against the Defendants alleging unlawful employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e, et seq. and the Tennessee Human Rights Act ("THRA") and seeking equitable relief and damages. Ambassador is a staffing agency. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RXeVle at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caraline E. Rickard, Esq. Curt M. Masker, Esq. RICHARD MASKER, PLC 810 Dominican Drive, Suite 314 Nashville, TN 37228 E-mail: caraline@maskerfirm.com curt@maskerfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Crowell, Esq. BARTON LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 2603 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 340-6790 E-mail: dcrowell@bartonesq.com - and - C. Jason Willcox, Esq. MOORE CLARKE DuVALL & RODGERS, Albany, GA 31708-1727 Telephone: (229) 888-3338 E-mail: jwillcox@mcdr-law.com APPLE INC: Must Oppose Hughes Class Cert Bid t by August 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hughes, et al., v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-07668 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 5, 2022), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting in part motion for extension of time to file response/reply. Apple is entitled to receive discovery on all plaintiffs before opposing class certification. Accordingly, its request for an extension is granted in part. -- The opposition is due 8/1/25 -- The reply is due 8/22/25 -- Hearing will take place Sept. 18, 2025. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, in Silicon Valley.[CC]a ASP ISOTOPES: Leone Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK LEONE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ASP ISOTOPES INC., PAUL E. MANN, and HEATHER KIESSLING, Case No. 1:24-cv-09253-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following Class: "All persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of ASP Isotopes Inc. ("ASPI") between Sept. 26, 2024 and Nov. 26, 2024, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the officers and directors of ASPI, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest, and any trust of which the Defendant Mann is the settler or which is for the benefit of the Defendant Mann and/or member(s) of his immediate family. 2. Appointing Lead Plaintiff Mark Leone and additional plaintiff Ivan Agapchev as Class Representatives; 3. Appointing Lead Counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class Counsel; and 4. Granting such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper. ASP engages in the production, distribution, marketing, and sale of isotopes. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eI8f15 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garth Spencer, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: gspencer@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com ASTRO AI: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mini Fridge Safety Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Astro AI Inc. faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the manufacturer failed to warn consumers that its now-recalled mini-fridges pose a fire and burn risk. The 22-page lawsuit was filed after more than 249,000 AstroAI four-liter/six-can mini-fridges were recalled by the company on June 18, 2025. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announcement, the products were recalled because an electrical switch in the wiring system can short circuit, causing the mini-fridge to overheat during use. The CPSC says it has received at least 70 reports of the products smoking, melting, burning or catching fire, with two incidents causing fires and significant property damage. Per the June 18 announcement, the recalled products include units with a model number of LY0204A and a nine-digit serial number that begins with "S/N" followed by 19, 20, 21, 2201, 2202 or 2203. The mini-fridges were manufactured between June 2019 and June 2022 and retailed for approximately $40, the class action suit states. The AstroAI mini-fridge recall lawsuit contends that the manufacturer failed to adequately disclose the dangerous fire risk plaguing the products. Indeed, consumers who purchased the mini-fridge reasonably believed that it would function safely and had no way of knowing it could overheat and pose a burn hazard, the case alleges. The complaint argues that consumers would not have paid as much for the allegedly defective fridge, or bought it at all, had they been aware of the apparent fire risk. As of the date of the recall announcement, the manufacturer is not offering refunds to consumers but will instead provide replacement mini-fridges to those who contact the company, the CPSC website states. The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased an AstroAI four-liter/six-can mini-fridge, model number LY0204A, at any time during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEET METAL WORKERS' NATIONAL PENSION FUND and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 710 PENSION FUND, individually and as Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of all others similarly situated, and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION FUND OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE, individually and as Named Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, WERNER BAUMANN, WERNER WENNING, LIAM CONDON, JOHANNES DIETSCH, and WOLFGANG NICKL, Case No. 3:20-cv-04737-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice: The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the Stipulation, and finds, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it will likely be able to finally approve the Settlement under Rule 23(e)(2) as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class. The Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on Oct. 30, 2025 at 1:30 p.m., either in person at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 3 – 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by telephone or videoconference. Lead Counsel is authorized to retain A.B. Data Group as the Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedures in connection with the proposed Settlement as well as the processing of Claims as more fully set forth below. Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court previously certified the following class by order issued on May 19, 2023: "All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bayer's publicly traded American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") from May 23, 2016 to July 6, 2020, inclusive." Excluded from the Class are (1) Defendants; (2) members of the immediate family of each of the Individual Defendants; (3) any subsidiary or affiliate of Bayer, including its employee retirement and benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases through such plan(s); (4) the directors and officers of Bayer during the Class Period, as well as the members of their immediate families; and (5) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any such excluded party. Also excluded from the Class are any persons or entities who excluded themselves by submitting a request for exclusion in connection with the Class Notice (defined below) that has been accepted by the Court and who do not opt back into the Class in connection with the Settlement Notice. Bayer produces and markets healthcare and agricultural product. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mBid8k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2375 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 357-0370 Facsimile: (312) 357-0369 E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com The Defendant is represented by: Noah B. Yavitz, Esq. WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 403-1000 Facsimile: (212) 403-2000 E-mail: NBYavitz@wlrk.com BIOGEN INC: Shash Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Investors ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADIA SHASH and AMJAD KHAN Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS, ALFRED W. SANDROCK, JR., and SAMANTHA BUDD-HAEBERLEIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-10479-IT (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying a class of investors comprising all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Biogen Inc. securities between July 22, 2020, and Nov. 6, 2020, inclusive. 2. Appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives. 3. Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel, Laurence M. Rosen, Jonathan Horne, Brian B. Alexander, Joshua Baker, and Sara Fuks of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as class counsel. Biogen discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers therapies for treating neurological and neurodegenerative diseases. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jibgiw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Jonathan Horne, Esq. Brian B. Alexander, Esq. Joshua Baker, Esq. Sara Fuks, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com jhorne@rosenlegal.com balexander@rosenlegal.com jbaker@rosenlegal.com sfuks@rosenlegal.com BRIGHTFARMS INC: Smith Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- PAULA SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHTFARMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00724-UNA (D. Del., June 10, 2025) challenges Defendant's policies and practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee from approximately November 4, 2024, until March 31, 2025. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. However, they were not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek, says the suit. Headquartered in Irvington, NY, Brightfarms, Inc. manufactures, produces, and markets food products at its facilities in multiple states including Georgia, Illinois, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES: Equal Website Access for Blind Users Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brighton Collectibles, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-02641-PAM-JFD (D. Minn., June 26, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website, www.brighton.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; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant offers women's jewelry and accessories for sale including, but not limited to jewelry, handbags, charms, wallets, belts, footwear, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CARISMA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Merger With OrthoCellix -------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Carisma Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: CARM) related to its to OrthoCellix, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, existing Carisma shareholders are expected to own approximately 10% of the combined company. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/carisma-therapeutics-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] CAT5 COMMUNICATIONS: Order Setting Scheduling Conference Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALKER LANE TAPP, et al., v. C.A.T.5 Communications, Inc., et al, Case No. 4:25-cv-00028-CEA-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Charles E. Atchley, Jr. entered an order setting scheduling conference. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), the undersigned United States District Judge will conduct a telephonic scheduling conference on July 25, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. EASTERN TIME. Any request to reschedule should copy all counsel and be directed to atchley_chambers@tned.uscourts.gov. The dial-in number for the conference is 1-865-351-1313 and the access code is 880027077. The Court expects counsel to be prepared to engage in a substantive discussion of the case, including the parties’ legal theories, facts in dispute, anticipated evidence, and all issues contemplated by Rule 16(a)(1) – (5) and (c)(2)(A) – (P). Counsel who will be actively involved in the case and who have the authority to bind the parties are expected to attend the scheduling conference. Before the scheduling conference, the parties must comply with Rule 26(a)(1), regarding initial disclosures, and Rule 26(f), requiring a discovery planning meeting. At the Rule 26(f) conference, the parties shall discuss the possibility of settlement. On or before July 18, 2025, the parties shall file a report outlining their discovery plan. The report must comply in all respects with Rule 26(f)(3). Based on the class action allegations in the complaint, the parties are further ordered to confer regarding (i) the necessity for phased discovery / discovery regarding class certification, (ii) briefing deadlines for motions for class certification and appointment of class counsel, and (iii) any other deadlines specific to the class allegations that will assist the Court and the parties in the efficient and orderly resolution of this matter. Cat5 is a telecommunications company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cYUU1R at no extra charge.[CC] CENTRE STREET: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Cheli Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE CHELI, an individual Plaintiff, v. CENTRE STREET PLACE, L.L.C., a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-12201 (D.N.J., June 26, 2025)is a class action suit filed by the Plaintiff on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, suing the Defendant or injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Ms. Cheli has visited Defendant's Property -- and the tenant spaces therein – on several occasions, her last visits as a patron of the occurred on or about April 8, 2025, and on or about May 22, 2025. Ms. Cheli has visited the Property, specifically (but not limited to) Cheessteaks, Robertito's, and Thyme Kitchen, as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public within but found that the Property a litany of ADA violations -- both in architecture and policy. Ms. Cheli frequently travels to the surrounding areas for shopping and entertainment purposes. She has visited this particular property primarily to patronize Cheessteaks (although it was closed during one visit to the Property), a new location garnering rave reviews across the internet and social media. The Property is located approximately 40 miles from Ms. Cheli's home; 1380 Washington Ave, Vineland, New Jersey. Ms. Cheli has personally encountered and physically experienced exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered her safety, caused her inconvenience, and forced her to suffer dignitary harm at the Property, says the suit. The Defendant owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza, alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com CINEMARK USA: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Waldrop Class Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as SHANE WALDROP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CINEMARK USA, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-321 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos Mazzant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied Cinemark USA Inc.'s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint without prejudice. This is a class action lawsuit arising from allegedly deceptive and improper business practices. The Defendant is a nationwide movie theater chain incorporated under the laws of Texas with headquarters located in the Lone Star State. In addition to movie tickets, Defendant sells its customers food and beverages, including draft beer served in clear plastic cups. On February 14, 2024, the Plaintiff purchased a twenty-four-ounce beer from one of Defendant's locations in Grapevine, Texas. Skeptical of the cup's capacity, Plaintiff took it home and "performed a liquid capacity test." The test revealed that the container could not hold twenty-four ounces; it could only hold twenty-two. On March 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit against Defendant, "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated," which he later amended on September 3, 2024. The Plaintiff brings claims for (1) violations of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) common law fraud, (4) breach of express warranty, and (5) unjust enrichment. On September 24, 2024, Defendant filed this Motion seeking to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). Judge Mazzant determined whether the Plaintiff adequately pleaded sufficient facts to establish the amount in controversy requirement for a class action. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), district courts have original jurisdiction when the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because: (1) there is no diversity between the parties; and (2) the Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. It contended that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there is no diversity between the parties. Both parties are Texas citizens, so the Defendant argued that diversity requirements have not been met under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA")),requiring minimal diversity and an amount in controversy greater than $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. The Plaintiff alleged that because Defendant operates in 42 states, the Defendant has "deceived consumers nationwide," not just those in Texas. He contended that "there are thousands of members in the proposed Class." Judge Mazzant finds that minimal diversity exists between the parties under CAFA because diversity alleged through proposed class members—when done in good faith—is sufficient to establish minimal diversity. The Plaintiff alleged that "the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, excluding interest and costs." Defendant countered that his allegations are "so quintessentially conclusory that they are not factual allegations at all." The Court agreed with Defendant. Under CAFA, the aggregate amount in controversy for class actions must exceed $5 million. Plaintiff has not stated how many individuals will make up the class, besides claiming that Defendant "sold 24 oz drinks to thousands of customers nationwide." The Plaintiff merely "believes that there are thousands of members in the Class." He has not suggested any specific amount that would satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. Instead, he asserts only that the relief sought "exceeds the sum or value of $5 million." Moreover, the Plaintiff admits that "the damages sustained by individual Class members may be small." Judge Mazzant cannot aggregate an admittedly small amount of damages from an unknown class to meet the Plaintiff's legal burden. The party invoking subject matter jurisdiction in federal court has the burden of establishing the court's jurisdiction. Judge Mazzant will grant the Plaintiff leave to amend its Complaint with facts reasonably supporting a sufficient amount in controversy. In light of the foregoing, Judge Mazzant denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rules 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff should file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days of the entry of the Order. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YUWGxC COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Court Narrows Claims in Esquibel Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABIGAIL ESQUIBEL, TAMMY SEARLE, JEREMY WAHL, AIMEN HALIM, NICHOLAS SALERNO and JASON ZIRPOLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., and TOM'S OF MAINE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00742-LTS-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Defendants' motion is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) with respect to all claims asserted by the Plaintiffs Salerno, Wahl, and Searle and as to the claims for injunctive relief asserted by the Plaintiffs Esquibel, Halim, and Zirpoli. The common law claims of constructive fraud (Count VII) and New York state claim for unjust enrichment (Count VIII) of Plaintiffs Esquibel, Halim, and Zirpoli are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs may make a motion to amend their complaint to address the deficiencies in these latter claims with respect to the Plaintiffs Zirpoli, Esquibel, and Halim within 21 days of the entry of this order. The Defendants' motion is denied with respect to all other claims asserted by Plaintiffs Zirpoli, Esquibel, and Halim. The case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Figueredo for general pretrial management. This Memorandum Order resolves docket entry no. 62. The Court finds that Plaintiffs make plausible allegations that the Products tested contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Plaintiffs also specifically allege that they were deceived by the use of the word "natural" on the bottle. The Court finds these allegations sufficient to meet the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b). On Nov. 9, 2023, the Court gave the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint for a second time to address deficiencies in their pleadings. Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TFXo8w at no extra charge.[CC] CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Russell Seeks Technicians' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID RUSSELL and JOHN ORTON III on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS OF NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND COMPANY, LLC, CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS OF VERMONT COMPANY, LLC, CS CONTRACT SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a CONEXA TECHNOLOGIES, C. ROBERT UDELL, JR., BENJAMIN SUNDERLAND, and KEITH CRISTOBAL, in their personal and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00572-kjd (D. Vt., June 10, 2025) arises from Defendants' unlawful practices that include failing to pay Plaintiffs and other technicians overtime wages. According to the complaint, the Defendants pay technicians by the hour when they assign technicians to complete repair work for Consolidated's customers. Although technicians typically work approximately 65 to 70 hours per week, the Defendants fail to pay technicians overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, instead paying them on a piece-rate and hourly basis without accounting for overtime compensation at all. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Vermont Employment Practices Act, Maine wage and hour law, and New Hampshire's wage and hour law. Headquartered in Mattoon, IL, Consolidated Communications provides telephone and internet services to residential and business customers in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and across the country. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Taylor J. Crabill, Esq. CRABILL PLLC 71-01 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (727) 335-1030 E-mail: tcrabill@crabilllawfirm.com CONSTRUCTION MASTERS: McLaughlin Seeks Flaggers' Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM MCLAUGHLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSTRUCTION MASTERS SERVICES, LLC d/b/a SUMMIT FLAGGING, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02969 (E.D. Pa., June 10, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons presently or formerly employed by Defendant in the positions of traffic control flagger who were paid on an hourly basis, and denied overtime compensation due to Defendant's failure to count certain pre- and post-shift work and compensable travel time towards their total hours worked in violation of the FLSA and PMWA. Construction Masters Services, LLC d/b/a Summit Flagging is a limited liability company headquartered in Sinking Spring, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Groh, Esq. Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com COSTA DEL MAR: Reed Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD E. REED, IV, v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-01751-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting motion for class certification; -- appointing himself as Class representative, and -- appointing Holland & Knight as Class counsel. The Plaintiff sued Costa for violating FDUTPA on behalf of himself and the following putative class: "All citizens of the United States [subject to the exclusions below] who purchased non-prescription, non-promotional Costa sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2018, and who were charged a fee by Costa, from four years prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint to the present, to repair or replace components of their sunglasses that Costa determined were damaged as a result of accident, normal wear and tear, or misuse." The Class should be certified because it is clearly defined (see Part I, infra), and Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied (see Parts II–III, infra). The Plaintiff alleges Costa violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), by selling sunglasses subject to the deceptive and unfair "nominal fee" promise and then charging fees that are not "nominal." The Plaintiff is a Louisiana citizen who, in 2014, bought a pair of Costa "Harpoon 580" sunglasses. Costa sells sunglasses. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KfzquG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter P. Hargitai, Esq. Joshua H. Roberts, Esq. Laura B. Renstrom, Esq. Michael M. Gropper, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-2000 Facsimile: (904) 358-1872 E-mail: peter.hargitai@hklaw.com josh.roberts@hklaw.com laura.renstrom@hklaw.com michael.gropper@hklaw.com DAVILA NY: Torres and Genaro Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- AGUSTIN MONTES TORRES and ARMANDO RAMIREZ GENARO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVILA NY LLC (d/b/a RESTAURANT DEPOT), HECTOR GONZALEZ and DANIEL DAVILA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03248 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as warehouse workers. Allegedly, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. In addition, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, say the Plaintiffs. Davila NY LLC owns, operates, and/or controls a restaurant wholesaler located at 556 Hamilton Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11232 under the name Restaurant Depot. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 DELTA STAR: Class Cert Hearing in Wilson Continued to July 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order continuing hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification July 30, 2025 Deadline for the Defendant to file opposition to motion for class certification. Aug. 29, 2025 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply in support of motion for class certification. Oct. 2, 2025 Hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Delta manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile transformers, and mobile substations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QjzqtH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com tlux@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. Kathy Huynh, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison St., Suite 13000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 768-0650 Facsimile: (510) 768-0651 E-mail: tyler.paetkau@huschblackwell.com kathy.huynh@huschblackwell.com DELTA STAR: Has Until July 30 to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting Class Certification Deadlines: July 30, 2025 Deadline for the Defendant to file opposition to motion for class certification. Aug. 29, 2025 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply in support of motion for class certification. Sept. 29, 2025 Hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Delta manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile transformers, and mobile substations. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f9hikG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com tlux@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. Kathy Huynh, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison St., Suite 13000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 768-0650 Facsimile: (510) 768-0651 E-mail: tyler.paetkau@huschblackwell.com kathy.huynh@huschblackwell.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Appeals Court Affirms Class Suit Decertification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spencer C. Skeen and Zachary V. Zagger of Ogletree Deakins report that the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, recently affirmed a trial court ruling decertifying a wage-and-hour class action alleging a hospital failed to comply with protections for meal and rest periods for registered nurses. The ruling provided several significant employer-friendly holdings regarding class certification in California wage-and-hour litigation. -- The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed a trial court's ruling decertifying meal and rest period claims. -- The appellate court held that an unreliable survey, combined with employee time records showing short/late/missed meal periods, was insufficient proof of class-wide liability. -- The ruling confirms that class member testimony can rebut a presumption of meal period violations created by employee time records. -- Additionally, the ruling shows that courts can weigh credibility and credit employer declarations in determining whether individual issues predominate. In Allison v. Dignity Health, a pair of registered nurses (RN) brought a class action on behalf of themselves and other RNs who worked at three Dignity Health hospitals, alleging claims for unpaid work, meal and rest period violations, and other derivative claims. The RNs alleged they were required to carry work-issued communication devices during their breaks, leading to interruptions of their break periods and off-the-clock work. The trial court initially granted class certification for the meal period and rest break claims, but later decertified the class based on new evidence revealed in discovery following class certification. In decertifying the class, the trial court found individual issues predominated over common issues, making class treatment unmanageable. The First Appellate District ruled that the trial court had not abused its discretion in decertifying the class. Notably, the appellate court found that the employer had successfully rebutted a presumption of noncompliance with meal periods based on testimony from class members that they voluntarily delayed or shortened meal periods. The case was decided on June 2, 2025, and certified for publication on June 24, 2025. Time Records Alone Do Not Prove Classwide Liability The nurses relied on a presumption of violations stemming from employee time records showing short, late, or missed meal periods based on the 2021 Supreme Court of California decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC. That case established that employees can create a rebuttable presumption of violation by pointing to time records showing noncompliant meal periods. The appellate court held that Donohue does not eliminate the need to prove liability through common evidence, and the presence of time-record anomalies was not enough without a reliable, unifying explanation that could be resolved on a classwide basis. The appellate court in Allison found that time records must be considered in context. The court said employers may rebut the Donohue presumption with evidence such as class member testimony explaining they voluntarily delayed or shortened meals, manager declarations explaining business operations, and evidence of meal waivers or legitimate reasons for variations. Specifically, the appellate court said the employer had submitted RNs' deposition testimony reflecting idiosyncratic reasons for noncompliant meal periods. Flawed Survey Evidence Cannot Establish Commonality or Predominance The appellate court found that without valid survey evidence, the RNs could not prove classwide liability or damages, and individualized inquiries predominated. The RNs had sought to use a survey to show common violations. However, the appellate court found that the trial court did not err when it disregarded the survey after finding it was "unreliable for class certification purposes and unworkable as part of the trial plan." The appellate court said that the trial court was within its discretion to assess the survey's admissibility at trial and did not overreach in ruling it was unreliable because it did not reflect a random sample of class members. The appellate court said the voluntary responses "present[ed] the potential for nonresponse bias, confounding randomization." Class Member Testimony Can Rebut Presumption of Noncompliance The appellate court further expressly held that testimony from class members stating they took breaks as they pleased, were not discouraged from doing so, or chose to work through breaks voluntarily can rebut the Donohue presumption. This ruling highlighted that individual class members themselves are valid sources of rebuttal evidence, making classwide treatment unworkable. Courts May Credit Assess Parties' Evidence at Certification Stage Additionally, the appellate court rejected the notion that class certification is automatically required when both sides submit conflicting evidence. Instead, it held that trial courts may weigh competing declarations and decide which evidence to credit when determining whether common issues predominate. This holding undermines plaintiffs' strategy to force certification by simply creating a "battle of the declarations." Key Takeaways The Allison decision is a powerful precedent for opposing certification in California wage-and-hour litigation. The Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held that an unreliable survey, coupled with employee time records showing short/late/missed meal periods, did not provide sufficient classwide evidence of liability. Additionally, the ruling confirms that class member testimony can rebut the Donohue presumption of meal period violations created by employee time records, and that courts may credit one party's evidence over the other's when deciding whether common issues predominate at the class certification stage. Ogletree Deakins' California Class Action and PAGA Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the California, Class Action, Healthcare, and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available. [GN] DONALD TRUMP: Casa "Birthright" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASA, INC. et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00201-DLB (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "All children who have been born or will be born in the United States on or after Feb. 19, 2025, who are designated by Executive Order 14,160 to be ineligible for birthright citizenship, and their parents." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court designate counsel from the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project as class counsel. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zrBntD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Conchita Cruz, Esq. Jessica Hanson, Esq. Zachary Manfredi, Esq. Dorothy Tegeler, Esq. Leidy Perez, Esq. ASYLUM SEEKER ADVOCACY PROJECT 228 Park Ave. S., #84810 New York, NY 10003-1502 Telephone: (646) 600-9910 E-mail: conchita.cruz@asylumadvocacy.org jessica.hanson@asylumadvocacy.org zachary.manfredi@asylumadvocacy.org dorothy.tegeler@asylumadvocacy.org leidy.perez@asylumadvocacy.org - and - Joseph W. Mead, Esq. Mary B. McCord, Esq. Rupa Bhattacharyya, Esq. William Powell, Esq. Alexandra Lichtenstein, Esq. Gregory Briker, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-9765 Facsimile: (202) 661-6730 E-mail: jm3468@georgetown.edu mbm7@georgetown.edu rb1796@georgetown.edu whp25@georgetown.edu arl48@georgetown.edu gb954@georgetown.edu DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLAINTIFF PACITO; PLAINTIFF ESTHER; PLAINTIFF JOSEPHINE; PLAINTIFF SARA; PLAINTIFF ALYAS; PLAINTIFF MARCOS; PLAINTIFF AHMED; PLAINTIFF RACHEL; PLAINTIFF ALI; HIAS, INC.; CHURCH WORLD SERVICE, INC., and LUTHERAN COMMUNITY SERVICES NORTHWEST, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; MARCO RUBIO, in his offiical capacity as Secretary of State; KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Case No. 2:25-cv-00255-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal N. Whitehead entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r4I77q at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Sarah Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as "BARBARA;" "SARAH," by guardian, parent, and next friend "SUSAN;" and "MATTHEW," by guardian, parent, and next friend "MARK;" on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, in his official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00244-JL-AJ (D.N.H.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: A. Granting their motion for class certification; B. Appointing attorneys from the ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Maine, Asian Law Caucus, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Democracy Defenders Fund as Co- Class Counsel; and C. Granting such other relief as may be reasonable and just. The motion seeks certification of a class of: "All current and future children who are or will be denied United States citizenship by Executive Order No. 14,160, entitled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" ("the Order"), and their parents." Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wrc2ka at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cody Wofsy, Esq. Hannah Steinberg, Esq. Stephen Kang, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq. Noor Zafar, Esq. Grace Choi, Esq. Lee Gelernt, Esq. OmarJadwat, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS'RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: cwofsy@aclu.org hsteinberg@aclu.org skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org nzafar@aclu.org gchoi@aclu.org lgelernt@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org - and - Morenike Fajana, Esq. Ashley Burrell, Esq. Elizabeth Caldwell, Esq. Morgan Humphrey, Esq. Mide Oduns, Esq. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector St., FL 5, New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 217-1690 E-mail: mfajana@naacpldf.org aburrell@naacpldf.org bcaldwell@naacpldf.org mhumphrey@naacpldf.org modunsi@naacpldf.org - and - Carol Garvan, Esq. Zachary L. Heiden, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MAINE FOUNDATION Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207) 619-8687 E-mail: cgarvan@aclumaine.org heiden@aclumaine.org - and - SangYeob Kim, Esq. Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq. Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq. Chelsea Eddy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 18 Low Avenue Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 224-5591 E-mail: sangyeob@aclu-nh.org gilles@aclu-nh.org henry@aclu-nh.org chelsea@aclu-nh.org - and - Norm Eisen, Esq. Tianna Mays, Esq. DEMOCRACY DEFENDERS FUND 600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, #15180 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 594-9958 E-mail: norman@statedemocracydefenders.org tianna@statedemocracydefenders.org Christopher M. Lapinig, Esq. Kimberly Wei Leung, Esq. Winifred Kao, Esq. ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 55 Columbus Ave San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 896-1701 E-mail: christopherl@asianlawcaucus.org kimberlyl@asianlawcaucus.org winifredk@asianlawcaucus.org - and - Adriana Lafaille, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS,INC. One Center Plaza, Suite 850 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 482-3170 E-mail: alafaille@aclum.org EASY ICE: Suit Ayala Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ELIJAH AYALA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. EASY ICE, LLC, JOHN MAHLMEISTER, and MARCUS HANGEN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00711 (W.D. Mich., June 26, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and putative Class members, who are all current and former preventative maintenance coordinators, work order specialists, ice delivery coordinators, procurement specialists, warehouse managers, accounts specialists, and other similarly positioned individuals employed by Defendants throughout the United States were victims of Defendants' underpayment of wages, including overtime. The Defendants' centralized management and payroll team automatically deducted thirty minutes daily from the compensation of Plaintiff, potential FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and putative Class members compensation for meal-breaks, which Defendants are aware their employees are unable to take. The Defendants offer subscriptions for commercial ice machines, which provide to customers the following services: delivery of the machines and any necessary parts, cleaning, repairs, and incidental back-up costs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Obringer Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RICK OBRINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EFFORTLESS OFFICE ENTERPRISES, LLC, and NEVADA HEART & VASCULAR CENTER, LLP, Case No. 2:25-cv-01142 (D. Nev., June 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to adequately secure and safeguard protected health information and other personally identifiable information. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members regarding the compromise of their Sensitive Private Information in a cyberattack (the Data Breach). The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of clients of Defendant Effortless Office, including Nevada Heart & Vascular Center. Accordingly, in order to receive medical treatment from these clients, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust Defendants with their sensitive, non-public Sensitive Private Information. Effortless Office is a group of cardiac and vascular doctors' offices and was a client of Defendant Effortless Office. The company provides cloud-based IT products and services to clients, including Defendant Nevada Heart & Vascular Center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 208 Las Vegas, NE 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Hassan Zavareei, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. David Lawler, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com dlawler@tzlegal.com ELLIS HOSPITAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 17, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davella v. Ellis Hospital, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00726 (N.D.N.Y., Filed June 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order granting the Letter Request setting proposed class certification and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) decertification deadlines. -- Opt-in written discovery is due by: Sept. 3, 2025 -- Defendant's deadline to designate Sept. 17, 2025 Opt-in Plaintiff's for deposition is: -- All depositions and written discovery Feb. 17, 2026 are due by: -- Plaintiff's Motion for Fed. R. Civ. March 17, 2026 P. 23 Class Certification is due by: -- The parties are directed to propose Feb. 17, 2026 a complete briefing schedule for the Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Certification and for Defendant's Motion for FLSA Decertification by: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] EPIC GAMES: Agrees to Settle Fortnite Class Suit for $126-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Epic Games agreed to pay a settlement totaling more than $126 million to resolve Federal Trade Commission (FTC) allegations it unlawfully charged Fortnite players for unwanted in-game purchases. The Fortnite class action settlement benefits Fortnite players who were charged in-game currency for unwanted items between January 2017 and September 2022, whose children made unauthorized charges to their credit cards between January 2017 and November 2018 or whose accounts were locked between January 2017 and September 2022 after they complained to their credit card companies about wrongful charges. This is the second round of payments in the Epic Game Fortnite class action settlement. The previous payment totaled $72 million as part of a $245 million payout settlement. The current claims process is limited to Fortnite players in the United States. According to the FTC, Epic Games, the company behind Fortnite, unlawfully charged players for in-game purchases they did not want, allowed children to make unauthorized purchases and locked accounts after players disputed charges with their credit card companies. Fortnite is a popular video game that allows players to compete in battle royale matches or play in creative modes. Epic Games agreed to pay $520 million to resolve the FTC's allegations. The company will pay $245 million in cash refunds to players and $275 million in civil penalties. Under the terms of the Epic Games Fortnite class action lawsuit settlement, players can receive a refund for unauthorized purchases, unwanted in-game items and other charges. Refund amounts will vary depending on how many players file claims with the Fortnite class action settlement. Players can receive their refund as a check or a PayPal payment. Checks must be cashed within 90 days and PayPal payments accepted within 30 days. Epic Games is also required to make policy changes to prevent future violations of the law. The company must get positive consent from players before charging them for in-game purchases and cannot lock players out of their accounts for disputing unauthorized charges. The deadline to file a claim for the Fortnite class action settlement was July 9, 2025. Players who filed a claim with the FTC by Feb. 14, 2025, are eligible for a refund. Players who filed a claim after Feb. 14, 2025, do not need to take any further action at this time. Epic Games is expected to send additional payments in 2026 after reviewing and validating all claims. Players who have questions about the Epic Games Fortnite class action lawsuit can contact the refund administrator at 1-833-915-0880 or admin@fortniterefund.com. Has a member of your family been treated for video gaming addiction? Or are you seeking treatment? You may be eligible for compensation. See if you qualify. Who's Eligible Fortnite players who were charged in-game currency for items they did not want between January 2017 and September 2022; whose children made charges to their credit card without their knowledge between January 2017 and November 2018; or whose accounts were locked between January 2017 and September 2022 after they complained to their credit card company about wrongful charges. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase Epic Account ID or claim number Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/09/2025 Case Name In re: Epic Games Inc. Fortnite Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 19-md-02915-AB-PK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Final Hearing N/A Settlement Website FortniteRefund.com Claims Administrator Epic Games Refund Administrator admin@fortniterefund.com (833) 915-0880 Class Counsel Benjamin Wiseman Mark Eichorn Andrew Hasty James Trilling Amanda Koulousias FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Defense Counsel N/A [GN] EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Black Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PHOEBE BLACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPISOURCE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05779 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) stems from the Defendant's failure to secure the sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information of the health care consumers whose Private Information was entrusted to the Defendant. Accordingly, in providing risk adjustment services, the Defendant is entrusted with the Private Information of consumers such as Plaintiff and the members of the Class. On June 6, 2025, Episource began sending Notice Letter to Plaintiff and members of the Class informing them that "on February 6, 2025, Episource found unusual activity in our computer systems." The Defendant provides risk adjustment services, software, and solutions to healthcare providers, health plans, and groups including commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare payers and providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com EQT CORP: Agrees to Settle Investors Class Suit for $167.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ Offshore Technology reports that American energy company EQT has agreed to pay $167.5m to settle a class action lawsuit filed by investors who alleged that the company overstated the benefits of its $6.7bn merger with Rice Energy in 2017. This settlement was disclosed in a federal court filing on 31 October 2023, reported Reuters. The plaintiffs in this case include the Government of Guam Retirement Fund, Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Annuity Fund, Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Pension Fund, and Cambridge Retirement System. The focus of the lawsuit was on claims that EQT misrepresented the advantages of the merger, which aimed to position the company as the largest natural gas producer in the US. The merger was a significant move for EQT as it sought to expand its gas business, making it the largest deal in the company's history. According to the plaintiffs: "The recovery -- $167.5min cash -- is notable as it is (by far) the largest securities class action recovery ever in the history of this District and the 14th largest in the history of the Third Circuit." The district in question is the US District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, while the Third Circuit refers to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The settlement was reached after nearly six years of litigation and three mediation sessions. The plaintiffs noted: "The settlement provides a favourable result for class members because it allows for an immediate recovery and removes the considerable possibility that class members could recover significantly less or even nothing." The case is officially titled "In Re EQT Corporation Securities Litigation" and was filed in June 2019, as per the federal court website. EQT officials were unavailable for comment. In April 2025, EQT entered an agreement to purchase the upstream and midstream assets of Olympus Energy for $1.8bn. This acquisition, which encompasses approximately 90,000 net acres and a production rate of 500 million cubic feet per day, is anticipated to substantially expand EQT's presence in south-west Pennsylvania. [GN] FCA US: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to May 15, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETIENNE MAUGAIN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Sherry Fallon entered an order approving the Parties' stipulation and adopting the following deadlines: Event Deadline Expert disclosures due from party Oct. 31, 2025 w/ initial BOP on subject matter regarding class certification: Rebuttal expert disclosures regarding Jan. 12, 2026 class certification due: Expert discovery regarding class Apr. 10, 2026 Certification cutoff: Deadline for any opposition May 15, 2026 to a motion for class certification: Deadline for any reply in support of June 15, 2026 a motion for class certification: FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TFvjRV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly A. Green, Esq. Jason Z. Miller, Esq. SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS, LLP 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 504-1656 Facsimile: (302) 652-8405 E-mail: kag@skjlaw.com jzm@skjlaw.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Majdi Hijazin, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Nathan Kiyam, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Majdi.Hijazin@capstonelawyers.com Abigail.Gertner@capstonelawyers.com Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com - and - Steven Calamusa, Esq. Geoff Stahl, Esq. Rachel Bentley, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A. 4114 Northlake Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com gstahl@fortheinjured.com rbentley@fortheinjured.com - and - Theodore Leopold, Esq. Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Karina Puttieva, Esq. Blake R. Miller, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com brmiller@cohenmilstein.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick M. Brannigan, Esq. Jessica L. Reno, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 574-7400 E-mail: pbrannigan@eckertseamans.com jreno@eckertseamans.com - and - Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE AND FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888-2970 E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com FEVID TRANSPORT: Court Approves Modified Class Notice ----------------------------------------------------- United States District Judge Margaret Strickland of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico sustained in part and overruled in part defendants' objections to plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent forms in the case captioned as CHESTER DEES, MARCUS HUBBARD, WANDA KIRKPATRICK, and JIMMY SANTANA, Plaintiffs, v. FEVID TRANSPORT, LLC, and SAND REVOLUTION II, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00873-MIS-KK (D.N.M.). The court authorized notice to potential collective members under the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action certification. On August 30, 2024, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants as a class action under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act and as a class and collective action under the FLSA. The complaint's prayer for relief requests "Judgment that Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members' overtime compensation" and "an Order awarding Plaintiffs and the Class Members all unpaid overtime compensation, an amount equal to twice their unpaid wages as liquidated damages, interest and all available penalty wages under the FLSA. On May 21, 2025, the court issued an order conditionally certifying this case as a collective action under the FLSA. However, the court reserved ruling on the form and content of the notice and consent forms, ordered the parties to confer in good faith to draft acceptable forms, and ordered the parties to "jointly submit stipulated notice and consent forms, or, if they cannot agree, file their competing notice and consent forms for the Court's consideration." On June 4, 2025, plaintiffs filed their proposed notice and consent forms, and defendants filed their objections thereto. Defendants also submitted a redlined version of the proposed notice and consent that reflects where disagreement exists between the parties. Court's Rulings on Defendants' Objections Objection 1: Gap Time Claims - Sustained The court sustained defendants' objection to the proposed notice and consent's mention of a purported FLSA "gap time" claim. The court agreed with defendants that "a reference to 'gap time pay' should be omitted from the Notice." The court found that "the Complaint does not plead a claim for unpaid gap time pay or request gap time damages; indeed, the Complaint does not mention 'gap time' at all." The court noted that "the Court did not certify a collective based on unpaid gap time." Consequently, the court ordered the removal of references to gap time pay from the proposed notice and consent. Objection 2: Court Approval Language - Overruled The court overruled defendants' objection to the proposed notice including language stating that the notice is "Court Approved" or "Court Authorized" and that it is "Not an Advertisement From a Lawyer." The court disagreed with defendants' argument that "including multiple reference to the notice being court-approved undermines the appearance of the Court's neutrality in the notice-giving process." The court found that "neither of these statements can reasonably be perceived as judicial endorsement of the merits of Plaintiffs' claims." Objection 3: Cost Liability Warning - Overruled The court overruled defendants' objection arguing that the notice should include a statement warning potential opt-in plaintiffs that they may be responsible for paying defendants' court costs if they lose. The court found that "such a possibility is so remote, and the potential for such language to discourage potential plaintiffs from opting into the collective is so high, that inclusion of the language in the Notice is improper." However, the court ordered the omission of the phrase "but you will not have to pay anything either" from the authorized notice. Objection 4: Ninety-Day Opt-In Period - Overruled The court overruled defendants' objection to plaintiffs' proposed ninety-day opt-in period and request a 60-day opt-in period instead. The court found that "Defendants have not persuaded the Court that a ninety-day opt-in period is unreasonable or improper." The court noted that "Courts within the Tenth Circuit regularly authorize opt-in periods of up to ninety days, reasoning that '90 days represents a reasonable period in which to attempt to contact (and repeat efforts to contact, when necessary) potential class members.'" Objection 5: Fee Arrangement Details - Overruled The court overruled defendants' objection that the notice should include details of plaintiffs' counsel's fee arrangement, specifically "the percentage of their counsel's requested fee in the opt-in notice, and whether the fee will be deducted from Plaintiffs' recovery in this action." The court found the existing language in the notice sufficient to apprise potential opt-in plaintiffs that the fee arrangement may impact their recovery. However, the court ordered plaintiffs' counsel to "promptly communicate to each opt-in plaintiff in writing the percentage that will accrue to Plaintiffs' counsel in the event of settlement, trial, or appeal, and otherwise comply with New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct 16-105(B) and (D)." Objection 6: Separate Lawsuit Authorization - Overruled The court overruled defendants' objection to the consent form including an option to refile any claims as a separate lawsuit. The court interpreted this provision "as a request for permission to file a separate, related action in the event the collective action is decertified." The court found that defendants "cite no authority finding this type of statement to be improper, and the Court finds that it is not improper." Objection 7: Email and Reminder Notice Approval - Sustained The court ordered plaintiffs to distribute the notice and consent by email in the exact form approved by the order. The court specified that "the Notice shall be the body of the email, but the Consent form may be distributed as an attachment to that email." The court further ordered that the "reminder" notice be identical to the notice and consent forms approved by the order, with one alteration allowing the top of the first page to read: "COURT AUTHORIZED REMINDER NOTICE TO POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS." Specifically, the court ordered that: 1. Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to give notice of this lawsuit to all potential plaintiffs using the approved notice and consent forms attached as Appendix 1 to the order, to be disseminated by U.S. Mail and e-mail consistent with the order and the court's prior order conditionally certifying a collective action. 2. To facilitate notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, within 14 days of entry of the order, defendants shall produce to plaintiffs' counsel the names of all putative collective members, along with their last-known mailing addresses, email addresses, and mobile telephone numbers. 3. The 90-day opt-in period shall begin 15 days from the date of the order, regardless of whether defendants produce the contact information before that date, and regardless of whether plaintiffs' counsel disseminates the notices before that date. 4. Collective members may execute their consent forms electronically via Docusign. 5. Plaintiffs' counsel may send a reminder notice to prospective collective members who have not submitted a consent form by the 30th day of the opt-in period, consistent with the order and the court's prior order conditionally certifying a collective action. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nAqaKw FRANK BRUNCKHORST: Court Wants ADA Complaint Amended ---------------------------------------------------- United States Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Marutollo of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Frank Brunckhorst Co., LLC's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as DENIS COOKE, Plaintiff, v. FRANK BRUNCKHORST CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 23-CV-6333 (E.D.N.Y.). The court dismissed multiple time-barred claims with prejudice while finding one claim timely, but ultimately dismissed the entire amended complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court gave Plaintiff until July 24, 2025, to file a second amended complaint that complies with Rule 8(a). Background and Procedural History Pro se Plaintiff Denis Cooke brought this action against Defendant Frank Brunckhorst Co., LLC, alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as codified, 42 U.S.C. Section 12112-12117. Plaintiff originally commenced the action on August 23, 2023, represented by counsel, alleging collective and class action causes of action against Defendant. The original complaint sought damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, costs, and attorneys' fees against Defendant for discrimination based on his disability and failure to accommodate his disability in violation of the ADA, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff further brought claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The court granted conditional certification as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action on March 22, 2024, and later modified the scope of the collective on May 18, 2024. The parties reached a settlement in principle on July 26, 2024, but Plaintiff rescinded his signature on the settlement agreement on September 17, 2024. At an October 2, 2024 conference, Plaintiff expressed his intention to proceed pro se and noted that he no longer sought to maintain a collective action. The court noted that "Plaintiff wished to abandon all claims save for those related to Defendant's alleged disability discrimination." Amended Complaint On December 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint alleging his employer's failure to accommodate his disability and their subsequent termination of his employment constituted discrimination pursuant to the ADA. Plaintiff contends that the discrimination was based on his ambulatory disability/disorder of gait as a result of cerebral stroke. Plaintiff utilized a form complaint for employment discrimination and alleged that Defendant refused his request "to return to work with limitations as outlined by his doctor on multiple occasions" and was ultimately terminated "due to those limitations caused by a stroke." Plaintiff seeks damages related to his insurance costs, loss of wages, and pain and suffering. The amended complaint alleged that the discriminatory acts occurred on four specific dates: (1) September 20, 2018; (2) November 12, 2018; (3) December 16, 2018; and (4) July 2, 2019. However, attached to the form complaint was Plaintiff's Charge of Discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that listed July 2, 2021 as the date discrimination took place. Defendant argued that the alleged discrete discriminatory acts listed on the face of the form complaint were time-barred. The court noted that "in order to bring a claim for disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice." The court found that Plaintiff filed his administrative charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on February 18, 2022. Therefore, to be timely filed, Plaintiff's charge must have been based on alleged discriminatory acts that occurred on or after April 24, 2021 (300 days prior to February 18, 2022). The court determined that "the four allegedly discriminatory acts referenced in the form complaint within the Amended Complaint are therefore clearly time-barred." However, the court found that "the last discriminatory act alleged in the Amended Complaint—July 2, 2021—is not time-barred." Consideration of EEOC Charge Defendant argued that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charge attached to the form complaint should not be considered in evaluating Plaintiff's claims. The court disagreed, stating that "the EEOC Charge is part of the Amended Complaint that was filed on December 18, 2024." The court noted that "pro se Plaintiff listed the alleged discrimination date only in the EEOC Charge attached to the form complaint, rather than on the form complaint itself, does not preclude the Court from considering that date." The court explained that "the form complaint explicitly references the EEOC charge, issued on February 18, 2022." The court cited established precedent, noting that "courts have incorporated similar EEOC charges into pleadings by reference" and that "courts throughout this Circuit have held that information not directly referred to in the text of a complaint, but rather noted in the attached documentation, should be considered by the court in reviewing a motion to dismiss." Although the court found that Plaintiff's claim stemming from the July 2, 2021 allegation was not time-barred, the court determined sua sponte that Plaintiff failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court explained that Rule 8(a) requires a pleading to contain: "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought." The court noted that "courts may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for noncompliance with Rule 8(a)(2) when the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." The court found that "Plaintiff's Amended Complaint has not met the requirements of Rule 8(a) with respect to his July 2, 2021 claim." The court determined that "the Amended Complaint is simply too vague to provide Defendant with the requisite notice of the alleged claim and supporting grounds upon which Plaintiff's allegations rest given its threadbare nature." The court emphasized that "simply attaching the EEOC Charge is not sufficient to meet Rule 8(a)'s requirements." The court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court dismissed with prejudice the allegedly discriminatory acts dated September 20, 2018; November 12, 2018; December 16, 2018; and July 2, 2019, as time-barred. However, the court found that "the last discriminatory act alleged in the Amended Complaint -- July 2, 2021 -- is not time-barred." Despite this finding, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court emphasized that "the purpose of Rule 8(a)(2) is to give fair notice of a claim and the grounds upon which it rests so that the opposing party may identify the nature of the case, respond to the complaint, and prepare for trial." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o0Ddt5 FUBOTV INC: Agrees to $3.4M Data Privacy Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who had a FuboTV account or used someone else's FuboTV account while living in the United States or its territories, may be eligible to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. FuboTV Inc. and FuboTV Media Inc. agreed to pay $3.4 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the companies collected, stored, used, distributed or retained users' personally identifiable information in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act and California Civil Code § 1799.3. Who is eligible for a FuboTV privacy payout? Class members meet the following criteria: -- They had an account to use the FuboTV streaming platform at any time on or before May 29, 2025, or -- They used the FuboTV account of another person at any time on or before May 29, 2025 -- They resided in the United States or its territories when they used the FuboTV account. How much is the class action settlement payment? -- Standard pro rata cash payment: Each approved claimant outside of California will receive an equal pro rata cash payment. Final payment amount will be determined by the number of claims filed. -- California pro rata cash payment: Class members who submit a claim form certifying they were located in the state of California at least one of the times FuboTV was accessed or viewed will receive a payment of 1.1 times the standard cash payment all other claimants receive. How to claim a FuboTV class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, Class members must submit a claim form by the Sept .12, 2025 deadline. There are two ways to file: -- File a claim online -- Print and mail the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Fubo Data Privacy Settlement c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225319, New York, NY 10150-5391 Required claim information -- Notice ID from official settlement notice required to submit an online claim form. -- Email addresses associated with the FuboTV account used by the claimant -- Approximate date of account creation, if known -- Approximate date of account closure, if closed -- Years the claimants watched FuboTV streaming content Payout options -- Electronic payment (only available for online claim submissions) -- Paper check mailed to the address provided $3.4 Million VPPA class action settlement fund The $3,400,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $1,360,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $2,500 each ($12,500 total) -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Opt-out/exclusion deadline: Aug. 28, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 12, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 6, 2025 When is the FuboTV data privacy settlement payout date? Payments will be issued to approved claimants 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement or 60 days after claim processing is complete, whichever is later. Why is there a class action lawsuit and settlement? This class action lawsuit was brought because FuboTV Inc. and FuboTV Media Inc. were accused of collecting, storing, using, distributing or retaining users' personally identifiable information in violation of federal and California privacy laws, including the VPPA and CIPA. The allegations include sharing information about users' video viewing activities without proper consent. FuboTV denies these allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense of ongoing litigation and the possibility of a trial. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Agrees to Settle Defective Engine Suit for $150M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that General Motors agreed to a $150 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that certain Chevrolet and GMC vehicles are equipped with defective engines that consume excessive oil. The GM settlement benefits current owners or lessees of 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche, Silverado, Suburban, Tahoe, GMC Sierra, Yukon and Yukon XL vehicles equipped with LC9 engines who live in California, Idaho or North Carolina. According to the class action lawsuit, certain Chevrolet and GMC vehicles are equipped with defective LC9 engines that consume excessive amounts of oil. Plaintiffs in the case say that GM knew about the defect but failed to disclose it to consumers. General Motors, who sells vehicles under several brands including Chevrolet and GMC, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $150 million settlement to resolve the oil consumption class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the GM settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Class members will receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund based on the number of vehicles they own or lease. According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated to receive at least $2,149. However, exact payment amounts may be higher or lower depending on the number of participating class members. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 8, 2025. The final approval hearing for the GM engine class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for Oct. 2, 2025. North Carolina class members who received an identification form in the mail must return the form by Aug. 8, 2025, to receive a settlement payment. No claim form is required by other class members. Who's Eligible Under the California class, current owners and lessees of a class vehicle that was purchased or leased in new condition in California as of May 23, 2022. Under the North Carolina class, current owners and lessees of a class vehicle that was purchased or leased in North Carolina as of May 23, 2022. Under the Idaho class, current owners and lessees of a class vehicle that was purchased or leased from a GM-authorized dealer in Idaho as of May 23, 2022. Potential Award $2,149 or more Proof of Purchase North Carolina class members must provide their vehicle identification number and the name and address of the person who purchased or leased the vehicle. Claim Form Deadline 08/08/2025 Case Name Siqueiros, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-07244-EMC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 10/02/2025 Settlement Website GMEngineLitigation.com Claims Administrator Settlement Administrator GM 5300 LC9 Class Action P.O. Box 5124 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 info@GMEngineLitigation.com (888) 307-8239 Class Counsel Adam J. Levitt DICELLO LEVITT LLP H. Clay Barnett III BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES P.C. Defense Counsel April N. Ross MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Court Decertifies Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Jaelyn Campbell of CBT News reports that General Motors (GM) won a major legal victory Friday, June 27, when a federal appeals court voted to decertify a class action lawsuit accusing the automaker of knowingly selling about 800,000 vehicles with defective transmissions. In a 9–7 ruling, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati found that the differences among affected vehicle owners were too substantial to justify a single class action. The court cited the complexity of 26 statewide subclasses and 59 separate state-law claims, concluding that the case could not be fairly managed as a single unified suit. Sign up for CBT News' daily newsletter and get the latest industry stories delivered straight to your inbox. The decision reverses an August 2024 ruling by Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore, who had approved the class certification. According to the appeal, Moore dissented from June 27 opinion, accusing the majority of creating "insurmountable barriers to certification for plaintiffs who file class-action complaints against national manufacturers." Moreover, the case involves Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac models from the 2015 to 2019 model years equipped with GM's 8L45 or 8L90 eight-speed automatic transmissions. Plaintiffs alleged that the vehicles shook and shuddered at higher speeds and hesitated or lurched at lower speeds, even after attempted repairs. Affected models include the Cadillac CTS, CT6, and Escalade; Chevrolet Camaro, Colorado, Corvette, and Silverado; and GMC Canyon, Sierra, and Yukon. The appeals court's decision sends the case back to U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Detroit, who may now consider whether smaller, more narrowly defined subclasses can still be certified. Class actions typically allow plaintiffs to pursue larger claims more efficiently. However, GM argued that the wide variability in how the defects manifested across states and vehicles made the case unsuitable for group litigation. [GN] GEP CENEX: Faces Robideau Suit in Calif. Over Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA ROBIDEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEP CENEX, LLC., a foreign limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV16724 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 10, 2025) arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and unfair business practices stemming Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to indemnify employees for expenditures. Allegedly, the Defendants required Plaintiff and the Class to work "off-the-clock", uncompensated, by, requiring Plaintiff and the Class to continue working during unpaid meal periods and by requiring Plaintiff and the Class to work before clocking in and after clocking out for the workday. In failing to pay for all hours worked, the Defendants also failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff and the Class worked, says the suit. GEP Cenex is a foreign limited liability company based in Burbank, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank H. Kim, Esq. KIM LEGAL, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 482-3300 E-mail: fkim@kim-legal.com GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Capsules' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Glenmark Pharmaceuticals falsely advertised the safety of its potassium chloride extended-release capsules prior to recalling the widely used drug last year due to a risk of serious adverse health effects or death. The 22-page lawsuit states that on June 25, 2024, the FDA announced that Glenmark would voluntarily recall 114 batches of potassium chloride capsules that the company said failed to meet dissolution rate standards. The FDA and New Jersey-based Glenmark stated that the failure of potassium chloride capsules to dissolve could cause high potassium levels, a condition known as hyperkalemia, which could cause an irregular heartbeat that may result in cardiac arrest. The potassium chloride recall was designated Class I by the FDA, meaning that, were the capsules to remain in circulation, there would exist "a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, [the recalled product] . . . will cause serious adverse health consequences or death," the complaint relays. Per the lawsuit, potassium chloride is one of the most commonly prescribed medicines nationwide. The recall announcement states that patients who require chronic use of potassium chloride extended-release capsules, particularly those with underlying comorbidities or conditions such as hypertension, renal dysfunction or heart failure, face a "reasonable probability" of developing hyperkalemia. The condition may spark potentially life-threatening health events such as cardiac arrythmias, severe muscle weakness and death, the filing relays. "In other words," the case states, "the most typical patients—those who depend on Glenmark every day to manage chronic conditions—are the most vulnerable to 'severe potential life threatening adverse events’ and death." The lawsuit alleges that the dissolution rate defect for which the capsules were eventually recalled was likely present for several years, either disregarded or undetected by the company. It claims that Glenmark also likely sold similarly adulterated potassium chloride that was not included in the recall because it had already expired by the time the defects became publicly known. Per the suit, these dangerous defects render the "adulterated" potassium chloride capsules completely worthless. According to the lawsuit, based on the size and expiration date range, the "dissolution defect" was likely present, "and either undetected or disregarded," for several years. "Glenmark’s overall course of conduct shows that it has chronically and systematically chosen to put its own profits ahead of patient health and safety," the class action lawsuit scathes, noting that the company "been forced to undertake" more than 60 other recalls, affecting tens of millions of pills for quality-control problems, in recent years. The complaint additionally claims that, until the recall, Glenmark continued to falsely advertise that the capsules were USP-compliant in naming, packaging and marketing materials even though the products did not meet the requisite USP minimum dissolution time standards or comply with the FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations. Without these representations, the drug would not have been bought or sold by distributors, pharmacies and pharmacists, nor prescribed by physicians, the case argues. Similarly, consumers expect that the medicines they are prescribed and sold are effective and safe for their use, the filing stresses. The class action suit also alleges that it is likely that Glenmark sold adulterated potassium chloride left out of the recall "because it had already expired by the time Glenmark’s defects became public." The Glenmark class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in Alabama who purchased the potassium chloride extended-release capsules that were recalled over failed dissolution standards or that similarly failed to meet applicable USP, CGMP and therapeutic equivalence requirements but was not recalled. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Must Pay $314.6MM to Settle Android Users' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Blake Brittain, writing for Reuters, reports that a jury in San Jose, California, said on Tuesday, July 1, that Google misused customers' cell phone data and must pay more than $314.6 million to Android smartphone users in the state, according to an attorney for the plaintiffs. The jury agreed with the plaintiffs that Alphabet's Google (GOOGL.O), was liable for sending and receiving information from the devices without permission while they were idle, causing what the lawsuit had called "mandatory and unavoidable burdens shouldered by Android device users for Google's benefit." Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement that the company would appeal, and that the verdict "misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices." The plaintiffs' attorney Glen Summers said the verdict "forcefully vindicates the merits of this case and reflects the seriousness of Google's misconduct." The plaintiffs filed the class action in state court in 2019 on behalf of an estimated 14 million Californians. They argued that Google collected information from idle phones running its Android operating system for company uses like targeted advertising, consuming Android users' cellular data at their expense. Google told the court that no Android users were harmed by the data transfers and that users consented to them in the company's terms of service and privacy policies. Another group filed a separate lawsuit in federal court in San Jose, bringing the same claims against Google on behalf of Android users in the other 49 states. That case is scheduled for trial in April 2026. [GN] GPM INVESTMENTS: Myers Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JEFF MYERS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GPM INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-008528 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 10, 2025) seeks to recover allegedly unpaid overtime compensation for Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers who worked for Defendant as exempt-classified store managers. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not pay him and other putative collective members for all hours worked, including all overtime hours worked, during their time as exempt-classified SMs. Moreover, the failure to pay stemmed from Defendant's improper classification of SMs as exempt, salaried employees rather than non-exempt, hourly employees. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. GPM Investments is a foreign limited liability company that operates as a convenience store chain. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com GRANITE CITY: Court Upholds Vehicle Impoundment Fee Ordinance ------------------------------------------------------------- Presiding Justice McHaney of the Illinois Appellate Court Fifth District affirmed the trial court's dismissal in the case captioned as DAVID FUNKHOUSER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF GRANITE CITY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 5-24-0666 (Ill. App. 5th Dist. 2025). The Appeals Court dismissed the class action complaint challenging the constitutionality of Granite City's impoundment ordinance that requires violators to pay administrative processing fees when their vehicles are used in certain offences. The Appeals Court concluded that "Granite City's ordinance designed to recover costs and expenses incurred by its police department in handling criminal investigations that culminate in an arrest, towing, and impoundment of the suspect's vehicle serves a legitimate purpose and is valid." Background In April 2009, the City Council of Granite City passed Ordinance No. 8128, its Impoundment of Motor Vehicles ordinance. The ordinance established two levels of administrative fees based upon the underlying criminal charge: a Level 1 administrative fee of $400 and a Level 2 administrative fee of $150. The ordinance states that "any motor vehicle, operated with the express or implied permission of the owner of record, that is used in connection with, to assist, or to commit, violations of any of the following statutes shall be subject to seizure and impoundment by the city, and the owner of record of said motor vehicle shall be liable to the city for a Level 1 administrative fee." David Funkhouser was arrested for DUI on July 10, 2011, and his car was towed and impounded pursuant to Granite City's ordinance. He was required to pay the mandated $400 Level 1 administrative fee. On December 6, 2011, Funkhouser filed his complaint against Granite City alleging that the "tow fees" require only a minimal amount of time and expense by Granite City Police Department employees to write a receipt for payment of the required tow fee. Procedural History The trial court initially dismissed Funkhouser's complaint on October 25, 2013. Funkhouser appealed to the Fifth District Appellate Court, which reversed and remanded on May 4, 2015, finding that Granite City failed to allege affirmative matter that would preclude the case from going forward, and assuming that the allegations of Funkhouser’s complaint were true. On December 19, 2023, Granite City filed a motion to dismiss and to strike Funkhouser's third amended complaint. The trial court granted Granite City's motion to dismiss and to strike on April 26, 2024. Class Action Status This case was filed as a class action complaint with Funkhouser serving as the class representative on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. In September 2019, Funkhouser amended his complaint to expand the class to include persons impacted by Granite City's amended ordinance effective December 6, 2011. In August 2022, Funkhouser sought to exclude certain class members whose arrests involved additional expenses such as vehicular crashes requiring hospital treatment, felony arrests and investigations, and cases where EMT or fire services were called to the scene. Facial Constitutional Challenge Funkhouser argued that Granite City's administrative fee was not rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose and that the impoundment ordinance violated his substantive due process rights. He contended that the $400 fee was unjustified because Granite City does not actually tow or impound the vehicle and that any fee should solely relate to costs incurred by Granite City in towing or impounding the vehicle. Substantive Due Process Claims Funkhouser argued that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to establish a violation of his substantive due process rights. His argument was based on the theory that the ordinance only authorizes Granite City to recover administrative expenses for writing or printing the receipt for the fees charged, claiming that the $400 fee for printing a receipt bears no reasonableness to the actual expenses. Voluntary Payment Doctrine The trial court found that dismissal was warranted pursuant to the voluntary payment doctrine, stating that the Granite City ordinance contained a method to seek a refund of the fee, and Funkhouser chose not to utilize that remedy. Court's Analysis and Findings The court applied the rational basis test, noting that "municipal ordinances are presumed valid" and that "courts must uphold the constitutionality of ordinances if it is reasonably possible to do so." The court found that Funkhouser's argument was "illogical and contrary to the plain language of the ordinance." The ordinance clearly states that vehicles "shall be subject to seizure and impoundment by the city, and the owner shall be liable to the city for a Level 1 administrative fee in addition to any towing and storage fees." The court determined that "Granite City enacted Ordinance No. 8128 to recover some of the administrative costs associated with the towing and impoundment of vehicles." In its prefatory paragraphs, Granite City stated that "the process associated with private motor vehicles that have been towed and/or impounded utilizes City resources in the form of Police Department personnel time." Substantive Due Process Analysis The court concluded that Funkhouser failed to make a claim of a valid substantive due process violation. Because Funkhouser's substantive due process challenge only involved deprivation of a property interest, he must either establish that state law remedies are inadequate or state an independent constitutional violation. The court found that "the ordinance could not legitimately be interpreted to mean that the $400 fee was solely for Granite City's provision of a receipt" and that the fee is not arbitrary or irrational. Voluntary Payment Doctrine Application The court agreed with the trial court's conclusion that Funkhouser's claim is barred by the voluntary payment doctrine. The ordinance expressly provides an administrative remedy for contesting and potentially recovering the fee through a hearing process. The court noted that "if there is a statutory remedy for a refund, the only mechanism to recover that fee is compliance with the statute." Court's Ruling The Illinois Appellate Court Fifth District affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the case. The Appeals Court held that: 1. Granite City's ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose of recovering administrative costs associated with DUI arrests and vehicle impoundment 2. Funkhouser failed to establish a valid substantive due process violation 3. Funkhouser's claims are barred by the voluntary payment doctrine because the ordinance provides adequate administrative remedies. GUARANTY BANCSHARES: M&A Investigates Sale to Glacier Bancorp ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (NYSE: GNTY) related to its sale to Glacier Bancorp, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, existing Guaranty shareholders will receive 1.0000 share of Glacier common stock for each share of Guaranty (subject to certain adjustments). Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/guaranty-bancshares-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] HAZA FOODS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due March 6, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAZA FOODS OF NORTHEAST, LLC., et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-06180-EAW-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mark Pedersen entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The deadline for any motions to compel is Aug. 1, 2025. 2. The deadline for the completion of all fact discovery related to class discovery is Oct. 29, 2025. 3. The deadline for the Plaintiff's expert report related to class certification is Dec. 29, 2025. 4. The deadline for the Defendants' expert report related to class certification is Jan. 28, 2026. 5. The deadline for any motion for potential class certification by the Plaintiff is March 6, 2026. 6. The deadline for any response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is Feb. 9, 2026. – out a month. 7. The deadline for any reply on behalf of the Plaintiff is Feb. 23, 2026. HAZA is the largest Wendy's franchise. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jt8l83 at no extra charge.[CC] HUNGRY POT: Court Denies Motion to Strike Class Allegations ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Julia E. Kobick of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Hungry Pot Dartmouth Inc.'s motion to strike class allegations and dismiss collective action allegations in the case captioned as DENGTAO CAO a/k/a PHILLIP CAO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUNGRY POT DARMOUTH INC., HUAXIN CHEN, HONG AN ZHENG, YI PING ZHENG, SHUO CHEN, and LEO DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11797-JEK (D. Mass.). The court ruled that plaintiff adequately alleged the existence of putative class and collective members whose claims could be resolved on a classwide basis. The court noted that defendant's concerns regarding the appropriate contours of the putative class can be addressed at the class certification stage when the court is permitted to consider evidentiary submissions and redefine the class or create subclasses. Background and Facts Hungry Pot Dartmouth Inc. operates a Korean barbecue and hot pot restaurant in Dartmouth, Massachusetts that is open seven days a week and grosses over $1 million in annual revenue. The restaurant employs approximately nineteen non-managerial employees at any given time, including nine front-of-house workers and ten kitchen workers. The individual defendants include President Huaxin Chen, Treasurer Hong Zheng, Secretary Yi Zheng, and board member Shuo Chen. Between April 17 and April 23, 2024, plaintiff Dengtao Cao worked 72.2 hours as a server at Hungry Pot. According to his immediate supervisor, Shuo Chen, Cao did not receive a base wage or salary and was paid entirely in tips because he is Chinese, and the defendant believed that he was undocumented. Non-Chinese workers are paid base salaries of approximately $2,000 or $2,100 per month plus tips. During his employment week, Cao received $2,995.26: $1,345.26 in cash tips; $1,181.18 in cash, which represented a portion of his credit card tips; another $118.82 in cash; and a $350 Zelle payment. But Cao alleges that defendant improperly retained $1,601.93 of his credit card tips. Cao filed this putative collective and class action lawsuit in July 2024, asserting six claims against defendant. The first three counts allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay minimum wage (Count I), failing to pay overtime to the tune of 1.5 times their regular rate.(Count II), and unlawfully retaining tips (Count III). The remaining three counts allege comparable Massachusetts state law violations for minimum wage (Count IV), overtime (Count V), and tip withholding (Count VI). Cao seeks to represent a collective for the FLSA claims and two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for the state law claims. The proposed classes consist of "current and former non-exempt workers employed by defendant at Hungry Pot Dartmouth during the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, through entry of judgment in this case." For the tip withholding claim, the class is limited to "current and former non-exempt tipped workers." Defendant's Motion Arguments Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the FLSA collective action allegations and to strike the Rule 23 class action allegations. Defendant argued that Cao's class allegations should be stricken as overbroad because they cover all hourly employees at Hungry Pot, including both tipped and untipped staff. Defendant contended that Cao does not satisfy the numerosity requirement because Hungry Pot employs only nineteen workers and has allegedly been open for less than a year. Defendant also argued that Cao is not an adequate representative because he allegedly did not submit requisite W-4 tax forms or comply with I-9 form requirements. Court's Analysis and Ruling The court found that Cao adequately alleged the existence of two groups of putative class members whose state law claims are susceptible of resolution on a classwide basis. The first group consists of all former and current non-exempt employees who were subjected to defendant's policies of failing to pay minimum wage or overtime. The second group consists of all current and former non-exempt tipped employees who were subjected to defendant's policy of withholding tips. Regarding the Rule 23 class allegations, the court ruled that defendant's arguments about the merits of whether classes should be certified under Rule 23 are premature. The court stated that "at this point in the litigation, Cao has neither had the benefit of discovery nor moved for class certification." The court explained that Cao should "have the chance to prove assertions through discovery and a properly-brought motion for class certification." The court noted that "courts should exercise caution when striking class action allegations based solely on the pleadings" and "should typically await the development of a factual record before determining whether the case should move forward on a representative basis." The court determined that the "dispositive question" is not whether the complaint satisfies Rule 23 but whether Cao "pleads the existence of a group of putative class members whose claims are susceptible of resolution on a classwide basis." For the FLSA collective action allegations, the court found that Cao plausibly alleged that defendant's policies of not paying workers minimum wage or overtime and unlawfully retaining tips affected Hungry Pot's non-exempt employees and violated the FLSA. The court ruled that defendant's arguments about whether Cao is "similarly situated" to other potential collective members are premature and bear on whether conditional certification of a FLSA collective action is proper, which has not yet been requested. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ay2Y27 IDAHO: Davids Sues Over Beneficiaries' Immigration Status Proof --------------------------------------------------------------- ABBY DAVIDS, MD, K.P., N.R., F.F., J.A.O.G., and JOHN DOE, v. ALEX ADAMS, in his official capacity as Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, MIREN UNSWORTH in her official capacity as the Deputy Director of IDHW in charge of Health & Human Services, ELKE SHAW-TULLOCH in her official capacity as the administrator of IDHW's Division of Public Health, ANGIE BAILEY as the Director of the Idaho Bureau of Rural Health & Primary Care, , RAÚL LABRADOR in his official capacity as the Attorney General of Idaho, Case No. 1:25-cv-00334-AKB (D. Idaho, June 26, 2025) is a class action suit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class of those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, challenging House Bill 135 (H.B. 135), amending Idaho Code sections 56-203; 67- 7903, and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare's (IDHW) decision to impose immigration status verification requirements on beneficiaries of certain federally-funded public programs. The action is brought on behalf of a class that would include all current and future persons who otherwise qualify for federally-funded services through the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act HIV/AIDS Program and Part B AIDS Drug Assistance Program who will be unable to provide proof of immigration status sufficient to receive federally-funded Ryan White services due to Idaho H.B. 135, and IDHW's interpretation and application of H.B. 135. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and permanent injunctive relief. Plaintiffs will seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of H.B. 135 immediately. Dr. Davids is a broad-spectrum family physician who sees patients in the clinic, works in the hospital, and delivers babies. Her clinical expertise lies in the care of newly arrived immigrants and refugees; the care of people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), viral hepatitis, and tuberculosis (TB); and the intersection of infectious disease, public health, and primary care. Defendant Alex Adams, PharmD, MPH, is the Director of IDHW, which administers federal public welfare programs in Idaho, including Ryan White/ADAP. He is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Miren Unsworth is the Deputy Director of IDHW in charge of Health & Human Services, which administers public services including Ryan White/ADAP.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Carlos Southwick, Esq. Emily Myrei Croston, Esq. ACLU OF IDAHO FOUNDATION P.O. Box 1897 Boise, ID 83701 Telephone: (208) 344-9750 E-mail: psouthwick@acluidaho.org ecroston@acluidaho.org - and - Joanna Cuevas Ingram, Esq. Kevin Siegel, Esq. Tanya Broder, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER P.O. Box 34573 Washington, D.C. 20043 Telephone: (213) 639-3900 E-mail: cuevasingram@nilc.org siegel@nilc.org broder@nilc.org - and - Seth D. Levy, Esq. Vincent C. Capati, Esq. Jacqueline D. Relatores, Esq. Brian J. Whittaker, Esq. Alvaro Cure Dominguez, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151 Telephone: (213) 629-6000 E-mail: slevy@nixonpeabody.com vcapati@nixonpeabody.com jrelatores@nixonpeabody.com acuredominguez@nixonpeabody.com - and - Nikki Ramirez-Smith, Esq. Casey Parsons, Esq. Talia Burnett, Esq. Neal Dougherty, Esq. RAMIREZ-SMITH LAW 444 W. Iowa Ave. Nampa, ID 83686 Telephone: (208) 461-1883 E-mail: nsmith@nrsdt.com cparsons@nrsdt.com tburnett@nrsdt.com ndougherty@nrsdt.com INTEL CORPORATION: Berkeley Wins Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG BERKELEY, v. INTEL CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00343-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order granting Berkeley's motion for class certification. The proposed class is defined as follows: "All Plan participants and beneficiaries who are receiving a joint and survivor annuity (or, for beneficiaries whose spouses died before commencing benefits, a pre-retirement survivor annuity) which is less than the value of the single life annuity converted to a joint and survivor annuity using the interest rates and mortality tables set forth in 26 U.S.C. section 417(e) with an annual stability and August lookback period." The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and breaches of Intel's fiduciary duties. Berkeley and a proposed class of approximately 1,847 Intel retirees or their surviving spouses allege Intel violated ERISA by converting their single life annuity ("SLA") to a joint and survivor annuity ("JSA") using unreasonable actuarial assumptions in the Intel Minimum Pension Plan ("MPP"). Intel is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A1VRyw at no extra charge.[CC] JAKO ENTERPRISES: General Pretrial Management Order Entered ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as 203 EAST FORDHAM LLC, v. JAKO ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02264-VM-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management and motion conference. 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. 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. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices, letters and letter motions are limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and letter-motions filed via ECF are required only if the filing contains voluminous attachments. Jako is a commercial real estate agency. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9KYmpy at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN PAUL: Heagney Wins Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL HEAGNEY, et al., v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00687-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting motion for class certification, although with respect to a narrower class than proposed by the plaintiffs. JPMS's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert witness and the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend are denied. The order assumes the reader's familiarity with the facts, governing legal standards, and arguments made by the parties. A class of all California residents who between May 1, 2015, and Jan. 1, 2020, purchased, directly from JPMS or through an authorized third-party retailer or salon, a JPMS hair care product branded as Paul Mitchell, Clean Beauty, Tea Tree, MITCH, Awapuhi Wild Ginger, Neuro, or MVRCK, is certified. The Plaintiff Randall Heagney is appointed class representative. Material differences in state laws preclude certification of a nationwide class. There are also differences between California's consumer protection statutes and those of other states, including the states the plaintiffs (other than Heagney) live in: Virginia, for instance, does not allow class actions, while Texas requires pre-suit notice to the defendant. Because Heagney is the only named plaintiff to whom California law applies, the class claims can only proceed as to the representation he saw and says he relied on—that is, the "no animal testing" statement, as well as the substantially similar "JPMS does not conduct or endorse animal testing" statement. The rest of JPMS's challenges to certification fail. John Paul is an American manufacturer of hair care products and styling tools. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JfEkd6 at no extra charge.[CC] KELLROE LLC: Estevez Class Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS ESTEVEZ and MARIO CERNA on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. MELISSA KELLY, JOHN KELLY, EMMA TSO, KELLROE, LLC, and CHAT NOIR LLC, ABC CORP. d/b/a CHAT NOIR RESTAURANT, Case No. 2:25-cv-03580 (E.D.N.Y.,S June 26, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work performed, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and all costs and disbursements associated with the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the other Collective Plaintiffs are, and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and have been subject to Defendants common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to pay them one and one half times their hourly rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants own a restaurant and event center that offers French and European cuisine with an address at 230 Merick Road, Rockville Centre, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280-4530 E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com KENVUE BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Falsely Labeled Aveeno Products -------------------------------------------------------------- CHEYENNE BEYER, YOLANDA PITRE, CAMERON GASKINS, LATONYA WRIGHT, and DAVONNA COX, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KENVUE BRANDS LLC, a Delaware and New Jersey corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-12180 (D.N.J., June 26, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's "hypoallergenic" and "sensitive skin" representations with respect to Aveeno products are false, deceptive, and misleading because those skin care products contain ingredients that are known allergens that may irritate the skin or even trigger skin reactions and allergic symptoms. Accordingly, the Defendant has benefited significantly from its false, deceptive, and misleading "hypoallergenic" and "sensitive skin" marketing scheme, increasing its market share and net profits at the expense of consumers who are willing to pay a premium for products that are suitable for sensitive and irritable skin or who want to purchase a product free of the allergen ingredients Aveeno includes in its skin care products. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of similarly situated consumers who purchased Defendant’s Aveeno Kids and Aveeno Baby skin care products that were falsely, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed as "hypoallergenic" and suitable for sensitive skin despite containing known allergens as ingredients (collectively, the Falsely Labeled Products). The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative nationwide class and subclasses of residents of New Jersey, California, New York, and Washington, D.C. and seek, among other relief, actual damages and injunctive relief to prevent Defendant from continuing its false, deceptive, and misleading marketing scheme, which has harmed Plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes. Kenvue manufactured, marketed, advertised, and distributed the Falsely Labeled Products throughout the United States during the Class Period. The Defendant created and/or authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements, packaging, and labeling for the Falsely Labeled Product.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Martin P. Schrama, Esq. Stefanie Colella-Walsh, Esq. STARK & STARK PC 100 American Metro Blvd. Hamilton, NJ 08619 Telephone: (609) 895-7261 E-mail: mschrama@stark-stark.com scolellawalsh@stark-stark.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. Christopher Nienhaus, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com chris@almeidalawgroup.com KRISPY KREME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McLaughlin Says ------------------------------------------------------------ PHILLIP MCLAUGHLIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00509 (M.D.N.C., June 25, 2025) alleges that the Krispy Kreme failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, full names, social security number, date of birth, phone number, digital signature, and email address. The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on Nov. 29, 2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected (Data Breach). While the Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as Nov. 29, 2024, Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach until June 16, 2025. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff heeded Defendant's warnings and spent time dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which included time spent verifying the legitimacy of the Notice and self-monitoring their accounts and credit reports to ensure no fraudulent activity had occurred. This time has been lost forever and cannot be recaptured, says the suit. The Plaintiff allegedly suffered actual injury in the form of damages to and diminution in the value of Plaintiff's PII—a form of intangible property that Plaintiff entrusted to Defendant, which was compromised in and because of the Data Breach. The Defendant is a multinational doughnut franchise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca K. Burne, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com fburne@forthepeople.com MARINHEALTH MEDICAL: $3-MM Deal in Data Privacy Suit Gets Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction Lawsuit reports that a $3 million settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit over MarinHealth Medical Center's alleged use of online data tracking tools, including the Meta Pixel, and distribution of consumers' information to third parties such as Facebook and Google without consent. The $3,000,000 MarinHealth settlement received preliminary court approval on May 27, 2025 and covers anyone in the United States who visited any of MarinHealth's websites between August 1, 2019 and May 27, 2025. The court-approved website for the MarinHealth Medical Center settlement can be found at MarinHealthSettlement.com. MarinHealth settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form may receive a pro-rata, or equal share, portion of the $3 million class action settlement following the payment of taxes, administrative expenses, service payments and fee and expense awards. Payment will be administered via the method chosen by the claimant on the claim form, including by mailed check, Venmo, PayPal and other digital methods. The settlement website states that the estimated range for individual cash payouts from the MarinHealth deal may be between $78 and $261. Settlement class members who were identified as having submitted a medical form online while using one of the MarinHealth websites will automatically receive their portion of the settlement via PayPal without having to submit a claim, the settlement website says. To submit a claim form online, settlement class members can head to this page and select the appropriate option, depending on whether they have a Claim ID and PIN found in their settlement notice, to begin filling out the form. To download a PDF version of the MarinHealth settlement claim form to return by mail, select the appropriate option on the File a Claim page and hit the continue button. All MarinHealth claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by September 24, 2025. Additional pro-rata payments will be made to settlement class members in an amount between $3 and $250 should any money remain in the $3 million settlement fund within 180 days of the distribution of initial payments, court documents state. Class action settlement payments from the MarinHealth deal will be distributed only if the settlement receives final approval from the court and after any appeals are resolved. There will be a hearing on October 20, 2025 to determine whether final approval will be granted. Through the settlement, MarinHealth has also agreed to remove Meta Pixel technology from its websites and not install the pixel without notice to and consent from users, the website adds. The class action lawsuit against MarinHealth Medical Center alleged that the healthcare system secretly employed data tracking tools, including the Meta Pixel, on its websites to collect and distribute the data of its users and visitors without their consent. [GN] MCLAREN HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Ferszt Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID FERSZT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCLAREN HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:25-cv-11932-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich., June 26, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard individuals' highly valuable personally identifiable information and protected health information including names, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, dates of birth, and medical information including billing or claims information, diagnosis, physician information, medical record number, Medicare/Medicaid information, prescription/medication information, diagnostic and treatment information. The harm resulting from this data privacy breach manifests in a number of ways, including identity theft and financial or medical fraud. The exposure of a person's PII or PHI through a data breach ensures that such person will be at a substantially increased and certainly impending risk of identity theft crimes compared to the rest of the population, potentially for the rest of their lives. Mitigating that risk -- to the extent it is even possible to do so -- requires individuals to devote significant time and money to closely monitor their credit, financial accounts, health records, and email accounts, and take a number of additional prophylactic measures, says the suit. McLaren Health is a health care system including twelve hospitals and operates Michigan's largest network of cancer centers and providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com META PLATFORMS: Faces Lee Privacy Suit Over Tracking Tools ---------------------------------------------------------- HAYDEN LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC.; ALPHABET INC.; and GOOGLE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04910 (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating numerous consumer protection laws by willfully circumventing protections and security protocols designed to maintain user anonymity and prevent the unauthorized collection and transfer of consumer data across different apps. According to the complaint, Defendant Meta's Pixel tracking tool effectively de-anonymizes user information and browsing habits, and can do so, even when private browsing modes are enabled on users' devices without their consent. Moreover, the tracking mechanism bypasses the Android operating system's "sandbox" feature, which is intended to limit and isolate activity between installed apps, and abuses an Android function that allows local host communication between an app browser and the device's installed apps. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, whose data privacy was violated as a result of Meta's unlawful conduct. Plaintiff also asserts claims for (1) invasion of privacy, (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, (4) violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and (4) unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Menlo Park, CA, Meta Platforms, Inc. provides social networking, advertising, business insights solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa D. Brown, Esq. Sarper Unal, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com sunal@ahdootwolfson.com MEYER BURGER: Gilbert Seeks 60 Days' Wages Under WARN Act --------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES GILBERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MEYER BURGER (AMERICAS) LTD., MEYER BURGER (ARIZONA) LLC, and MEYER BURGER (HOLDING) CORP., Case No. 25-11217-CTG (D. Del., June 25, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants 60 days' wages and benefits, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act. On May 28, 2025, the Defendants suddenly terminated approximately 400 employees who worked at, reported to, or received assignments from their factory in Goodyear, Arizona. Employees found out about their separations from media reports, which was confirmed by the Company, that their jobs would be eliminated effectively immediately. The Plaintiff worked as a production supervisor for Defendants at their facility located at 1685 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Arizona from October 2024 until his termination of employment on or about May 28, 2025. The Plaintiff was terminated without cause. Along with the Plaintiff, an estimated 400 other similarly situated employees who worked at, reported to, or received assignments from the Facility were terminated that day, asserts the suit. Meyer Burger Americas was founded in 2004. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of industrial machinery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES, P.A. 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-0248 Facsimile: (302) 654-0728 E-mail: loizides@loizides.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 E-mail: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com jar@raisnerroupinian.com MICROGENICS CORP: Seeks Denial of Moreland Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN MORELAND, et al., v. MICROGENICS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00748-ENV-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants shall move before the Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano on a date and at a time to be set by the Court, for an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure denying class certification. Microgenics develops, manufactures, and markets medical equipment. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lUJOfS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Laura Flahive Wu, Esq. Stacey Grigsby, Esq. Andrew Soukup, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: lflahivewu@cov.com sgrigsby@cov.com asoukup@cov.com - and - Christopher R. Carton, Esq. Erica Mekles, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 750 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (201) 577-5196 Facsimile: (804) 649-1762 E-mail: erica.mekles@bowmanandbrooke.com chris.carton@bowmanandbrooke.com MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Micron Technology Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending May 29, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. On January 9, 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed against Micron and certain individual officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 3, 2025, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (“D. Idaho”), and on May 23, 2025, an amended complaint was filed in D. Idaho. The amended complaint alleges defendants made materially false or misleading statements during a putative class period from March 29, 2023 to December 18, 2024, regarding industry supply and demand dynamics and the demand for Micron's products, including NAND and DRAM products. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Micron Technology is into memory and storage solutions whose portfolio includes DRAM, NAND, and NOR memory and storage products through its Micron(R) and Crucial(R) brands. MICROSOFT CORP: Bird Sues Over Flagrant and Harmful Infringements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kai Bird, Jonathan Alter, Mary Bly, Victor Lavalle, Eugene Linden, Daniel Okrent, Hampton Sides, Jia Joleniino, Rachel Vail, Simon Winchester, and Eloisa James, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-05282 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2025), is brought under the Copyright Act seeking redress for Microsoft's flagrant and harmful infringements of Plaintiffs' registered copyrights and seeking to represent a class of copyright holders whose books works were downloaded and/or used to train Microsoft's artificial intelligence models ("Class"). Microsoft released a private demo of the first Turing LLM, named "Turing-NLG," in February 2020. In October 2021, Microsoft published a blog post, introducing the significantly larger successor model, the "Megatron-Turing Natural Language Generation model (MT-NLG)" (hereinafter ' 'Megatron" or "Megatron LLM"). LLMs are algorithms designed to output human-seeming text responses to users' prompts and queries. To generate text output that resembles human expression, LLMs must be trained on a large, diverse corpus of text written by humans. In training its models, Microsoft reproduced copyrighted texts to exploit precisely what the Copyright Act was designed to protect: the elements of protectible expression within them, like the choice and order of words and sentences, syntax, flow, themes, and paragraph and story structure. In Other words, the goal of the training process was to teach the model to learn how words fit together grammatically, how words work together to form higher-level ideas, and how sequences of words form structured thoughts. In other words, by training its models on certain works, Microsoft copied the works' expression so that the models could memorize, mimic, and paraphrase that expression. Defendants copied and data-mined the works of writers, without permission or compensation, to build a machine that is capable (or, as technology advances, will soon be capable) of performing the same type of work for which these writers would be paid. Microsoft's commercial gain has come at the expense of creators and rightsholders like Plaintiffs and members of the Class. A person who reads a book typically buys it from a store. But Microsoft did not even do that. Instead, Microsoft took these works; it made unlicensed copies of them; and it used those unlicensed copies to digest and analyze the copyrighted expression in them, all for commercial gain, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are copyright holders of a broad array of works. Microsoft is the developer of the "Turing"-line of Large Language Models or LLMs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Geman, Esq. Anna J. Freyrnann, Esq. Wesley Dozier, Esq. Danna Elmasry, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSIEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: 212.355.9500 Email: rgeman@Ichb.com afreymann@lchb.com wdozier@lchb.com delmasn@lchb.com - and - Justin A. Nelson, Esq. Alejandra C, Salinas, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713,651.9366 Email: jnelson@susmangodfrey.com asalinas@susmangodfrey.com - and - Scott J. Shoulder, Esq. CeCe M. Cole, Esq. COWAN DEBAETS ABRAHAMS & SHEPPARD LLP 60 Broad Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: 212.974.7474 Email: ssholder@cdas.com ccole@cdas.com - and - Rohit D. Nath, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.789.3100 Email: math@susmangodfivy.com - and - J. Craig Smyser, Esq. Charlotte Lepic, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. One Manhattan West, 51st Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212.336.8330 Email: csmyser@susmangodfrey.com clepic@susmangodfrey.com MIKDARL INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sartori Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- ORLANDO LUCIANO SARTORI and GILMAR ALVES PEREIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIKDARL, INC. d/b/a RANDOLPH CAFE, MICHAEL MUNICHIELLO, and DARLENE CARTAGENA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11680 (D. Mass., June 10, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act, the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as delivery workers. However, they were required to spend a considerable part of their workday performing non-tipped duties, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants without the appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that they worked. Among other things, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked at the straight rate of pay, says the suit. Mikdarl, Inc. d/b/a Randolph Cafe is a domestic profit corporation headquartered in Hingham, MA. [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 E-mail: Odu@odulawfirm.com abarros@odulawfirm.com NEVADA RESTAURANT: Settlement Class in Sanguinetti Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA SANGUINETTI, RAYMOND D. SPEIGHT, DAVID DIETZEL, PdATRICIA SAAVEDRA, AND NINA S. KUHLMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEVADA RESTAURANT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01768-RFB-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Richard F. Boulware, II entered an order that: 1. The Court, having reviewed the terms of the settlement agreement submitted by the Parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement and for purposes of the settlement agreement and this final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice only, the Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons who were mailed notice by NRS that their personal and/or financial information was impacted in a data incident occurring on or before Jan. 16, 2021." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: NRS, any Related Entities, and their officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) any judges assigned to this case and their staff and family; and (iv) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 2. The terms of the Settlement Agreement – as amended to raise the cap on Alternative Cash Payments to $250,000 and to reduce the combined attorneys' fees and expenses requested to $246,442 – are fair, adequate, and reasonable and are approved, adopted, and incorporated by the Court. 3. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and in recognition of their efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court approves a payment to the Class Representatives in the amount of $2500 each as a Service Award (for a total of $10,000). Defendant shall make such payment in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 4. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of David Lietz and Gary Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC; M. Anderson Berry and Gregory Haroutunian of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corp.; Jean Martin of Morgan & Morgan; and Geroge Haines and Gerardo Avalos of Freedom Law Firm, Michael Kind of Kind Law, and David Wise and Joseph Langone of Wise Law Firm, PLC. as Class Counsel. The Court concludes that Class Counsel has adequately represented the Settlement Class and will continue to do so. 5. The Court, after careful review of the fee petition filed by Class Counsel, and after applying the appropriate standards required by relevant case law, grants Class Counsel’s application for combined attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket case expenses in the amount of $246,442.00. The Court notes that included in that combined amount is $18,711.29 in litigation expenses, meaning that the attorneys’ fees awarded are $227,730.71. Payment shall be made pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Nevada operates as a provider of restaurant management consulting services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ALwZY at no extra charge.[CC] NEXT HEALTH MANAGEMENT: J.C. Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Next Health Management Group, Inc. The case is styled as J.C., on behalf of themself and all others similarly situated v. Next Health Management Group, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-05757-SRM-JPR (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Next Health -- https://www.next-health.com/ -- offers personalized wellness strategies, including IV therapy and hormone treatments, to support health and vitality.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley Michael Griffith, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (310) 896-5813 Email: wes@almeidalawgroup.com NVIDIA CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 31, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abdi Nazemian, et al., v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case No. 4:24-cv-01454-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order that the Parties shall adhere to the following case schedule as modified: Event Deadline Deadline to File Motions Regarding Jan. 29, 2026 Fact Discovery: Deadline to File Motions Regarding June 18, 2026 Expert Discovery: Close of Expert Discovery June 26, 2026 Deadline to File Class Certification July 31, 2026 Motions: Deadline to File Oppositions to Class Sept. 11, 2026 Certification Motions: Deadline to File Replies in Support of Nov. 6, 2026 Summary Judgment Motions: Nvidia is a multinational technology company known for its pioneering work in GPU-accelerated computing and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jZG3v2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Evan Creutz, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. William Castillo Guardado, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com wcastillo@saverilawfirm.com - and - Matthew Butterick, Esq. BUTTERICK LAW 1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 968-2632 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. Alexander J. Sweatman, Esq. Mohammed Rathur, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com asweatman@caffertyclobes.com mrathur@caffertyclobes.com - and - David A. Straite, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Nada Djordjevic, Esq. James A. Ulwick, Esq. Brian O'Mara, Esq. DiCELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com julwick@dicellolevitt.com briano@dicellolevitt.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. Laura M. Matson, Esq. Arielle Wagner, Esq. Eura Chang, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612)339-6900 Facsimile: (612)339-0981 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com lmmatson@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com echang@locklaw.com - and - Justin A. Nelson, Esq. Alejandra C. Salinas, Esq. Rohit D. Nath, Esq. Elisha Barron, Esq. Craig Smyser, Esq. Jordan W. Connors, Esq. Trevor D. Nystrom, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 E-mail: jnelson@susmangodfrey.com asalinas@susmangodfrey.com RNath@susmangodfrey.com ebarron@susmangodfrey.com csmyser@susmangodfrey.com jconnors@susmangodfrey.com tnystrom@susmangodfrey.com - and - Rachel J. Geman, Esq. Danna Z. Elmasry, Esq. Anne B. Shaver, Esq. Betsy A. Sugar, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com delmasry@lchb.com ashaver@lchb.com bsugar@lchb.com The Defendant is represented by: Sean S. Pak, Esq. Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq. Rachael L. McCracken, Esq. Alex Spiro, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 E-mail: seanpak@quinnemanuel.com andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com rachaelmccracken@quinnemanuel.com alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com PACIFICORP: Filing for Class Cert Bids in McGuire Due Dec. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McGuire, et al., v. PacifiCorp., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01507 (D. Or., Filed Sept. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered a scheduling order as follows: Motions to compel pre-class certification Nov. 14, 2025 discovery are due: Any responses to those motions are Dec. 2, 2025 due: Discovery on the pre-class Jan. 20, 2026 certification motions for summary judgment will close on: A statement of agreed and disputed Feb. 6, 2026 facts related to the named Plaintiffs' claims is due: Motions for summary judgment on the Feb. 13, 2026 named Plaintiffs' claims are due: Classwide discovery will begin on: July 13, 2026 Motions for class certifications Dec. 18, 2026 are due: Responses are due: Jan. 22, 2027 Replies are due: Feb. 5, 2027 The deadline to amend the pleadings April 9, 2027 and join parties is: Motions to compel fact discovery May 7, 2027 are due: Initial expert disclosures are due: June 18, 2027 Motions to compel expert discovery Aug. 6, 2027 are due: Classwide discovery will close: Sept. 17, 2026 The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land. PacifiCorp is an electric power company.[CC] PDX AROMATICS: Faces W.G. Suit Over Mislabeled Kratom Products -------------------------------------------------------------- W.G., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PDX AROMATICS LLC d/b/a Kraken Kratom, Case No. 5:25-cv-01589 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) is a civil class action lawsuit against the Defendant for false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its kratom powder, kratom liquid shots, kratom extract tablets, kratom liquid extract, kratom extract soft gels, kratom chocolate, and kratom gummies (the Products). Kratom is a dried leaf that is sold as a loose powder, packaged into capsules, or made into extracts or other consumables. However, what reasonable consumers do not know, and Defendant fails to disclose, is that the active ingredients in kratom are similar to opioids. That is, kratom works on the exact same opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine and its analogs; has similar effects as such, and critically, has the same risk of physical addiction and dependency, with similar withdrawal symptoms, says the suit. When reasonable consumers think of opiates and opioids, they think of heroin, fentanyl, hydrocodone, oxycodone, and morphine; they do not expect that the "all natural" product bought at their local corner store operates like an opioid, with similar addiction and dependency risks. The Defendant has intentionally and negligently failed to disclose these material facts anywhere on its labeling, packaging, or marketing materials, and it has violated warranty law and state consumer protection laws in the process, the suit asserts. Plaintiff W.G. first purchased the Products from the Defendant's website in or around April 2023. The Defendant markets, sells, and distributes the Products throughout the United States, including California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski White, Esq. Ryan B. Martin, 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 lsironski@bursor.com rmartin@bursor.com PETCO HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc. ("Petco" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WOOF). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information about Petco's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) Petco's pandemic-related tailwinds were unsustainable, as was its business model of selling primarily premium and/or high-grade pet food; (ii) accordingly, the strength of Petco's differentiated product strategy was overstated; (iii) Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of the foregoing issues, the magnitude of changes needed to rectify those issues, and the likely negative impacts of their mitigation strategy on Petco's comparable sales metric; and (iv) accordingly, Defendants overstated Petco's ability to deliver sustainable, profitable growth. If you purchased shares of Petco between January 14, 2021 and June 5, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/petco/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is August 29, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] PHARMACARE U.S.: Court Finds No Consumer Deception in Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James E Simmons Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted PharmaCare U.S., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the putative class action case captioned as MONTIQUENO CORBETT and ROB DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG (S.D. Cal.). The court dismissed all claims against the defendant, finding no genuine dispute of material fact and ruling that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Background and Claims Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against PharmaCare U.S., Inc., asserting various consumer protection and breach of warranty claims based on Sambucol products, the defendant's dietary supplements containing black elderberry extract. The plaintiffs brought six claims: (1) California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et seq.; (2) California's False Advertising Law, California Business and Professional Code Section 17500 et seq.; (3) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Section 1750 et seq.; (4) Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act, Missouri Annotated Statutes Section 407.010 et seq.; (5) Breach of Express Warranties; and (6) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability. The plaintiffs relied on two underlying theories: 1. They alleged the products were illegal to sell as dietary supplements because they contain a new unreported dietary ingredient (the "NDI claims"). 2. They alleged the products, through challenged misrepresentations, unlawfully claim to mitigate or prevent disease (the "Disease claims"). The court granted summary judgment for PharmaCare on the NDI claims after the defendant admitted that "its Sambucol Products do not contain a novel elderberry extract" because "it is just elderberry juice." The plaintiffs conceded that "the parties agree that judgment should be entered for the NDI claims." The court found "there is no genuine dispute of material fact" and disposed of the plaintiffs' individual and certified class NDI claims, including the express and implied warranty claims, and the California and Missouri subclass claims. Disease Claims The court also granted summary judgment for PharmaCare on the Disease claims. The court found that the challenged misrepresentations included statements such as "virologist developed," "developed by a world renowned virologist," and "supports immunity." The court analyzed whether these statements would mislead reasonable consumers under California's consumer protection laws. The court distinguished between deceptive and ambiguous statements, noting that "a deceptive statement on the front of a label cannot be saved by the truth being hidden on the side or back" but "an ambiguous statement on the front of a label can be clarified by the side or back label to avoid misleading consumers." The court found that the challenged misrepresentations were accompanied by an asterisk and FDA disclaimer, which "puts a reasonable consumer on notice that there are qualifications or caveats" to the statements. Expert Survey Evidence The court examined expert survey results that tested whether consumers were deceived by the challenged misrepresentations. The survey found that "only 51.9% of the Test Group indicated the Challenged Misrepresentations implicitly claim the Products treat or prevent disease." The court applied Ninth Circuit precedent finding that when survey respondents "were split nearly 50/50," this confirmed the challenged terms were ambiguous, not misleading. Legal Analysis The court applied the reasonable consumer standard, which requires "a probability that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled." The court found that Plaintiff Corbett's reliance on the entire label, which included disclaimers, was "indicative of its ambiguity because he necessarily required more information about the Product." The court concluded that the product's entire label "makes it impossible for Plaintiffs to prove that a reasonable consumer was likely to be deceived" by the challenged misrepresentations. The court ruled that "as a matter of law, the Challenged Misrepresentations are ambiguous, not deceptive, and are not misleading to a reasonable consumer." The court also granted the plaintiffs' motions to seal portions of their opposition and to allow non-electronic filing of portions of Exhibit F of the Declaration of Trenton R. Kashima, as the defendant did not oppose these requests. The court granted summary judgment on both the NDI claims and the Disease claims to PharmaCare U.S., Inc. All claims against the defendant were resolved in favor of PharmaCare U.S., Inc. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AcOvPF PINTAIL ALTERNATIVE: Cumbie Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA & NMMWA -------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY CUMBIE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PINTAIL ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, L.L.C., PINTAIL COMPLETIONS, LLC, and MATTHEW HOUSTON, Case No. 6:25-cv-00604 (D.N.M., June 26, 2025) seeks to recover all unpaid overtime and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members are those current and former hourly employees who worked for Defendants, in New Mexico, and did not enter into a valid and binding arbitration agreement with Defendants, at any time from June 26, 2022, through the final disposition of this matter. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members routinely work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Pintail is an oilfield services company operating throughout West Texas and New Mexico. Houston is the current president and former owner of Pintail.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Kuhk Seeks to Certify Two Classes -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER KUHK, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PLAYSTUDIOS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00460-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order his motion and certifying both proposed classes: Damages Class: "All persons who, while in the State of Washington, purchased virtual casino chips from Playstudios after Feb. 19, 2020, excluding: Defendant's officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors; judicial officers assigned to this matter and their immediate family members; and Class Counsel, including employees of Class Counsel's law firm, experts/agents hired by Class Counsel to work on this litigation, and Class Counsel's immediate family members." Injunctive Relief Class: "All persons in the State of Washington who played POP! Slots; MGM Slots Live; myKONAMI Slots, myVEGAS Bingo; myVEGAS Slots; or myVEGAS Blackjack after February 19, 2020." The Plaintiff Tyler Kuhk requests that the Court certify this case as a class action on his claims for injunctive relief and damages in connection with virtual casino games operated by Defendant Playstudios. Mr. Kuhk easily satisfies the Rule 23(a) criteria, as his claims center on Playstudios’ practice of engaging thousands and thousands of Washington consumers in virtual casino games in which it sells virtual chips in exchange for gameplay, according to the same rules, under the same terms of service, and subject to the same laws. Playstudios develops and publishes free-to-play casual games for mobile and social platforms. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I5cv0P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lindsay L. Halm, Esq. Adam J. Berger, Esq. Hong (Chen-Chen) Jiang, Esq. Andrew D. Boes, Esq. SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 401 Union Street, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 622-8000 Facsimile: (206) 682-2305 E-mail: halm@sgb-law.com berger@sgb-law.com jiang@sgb-law.com boes@sgb-law.com POTENCIA DELI: Martinez Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA POTENCIA DELI GROCERY CORP. (D/B/A LA POTENCIA), RAIKEL CASTILLO, and WELLINGTON VILLALONA SOTO, Case No. 1:25-cv-05288 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Martinez was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work-day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to carrying deliveries into the basement and accommodating the deliveries in the basement or in the freezer, sweeping and mopping, organizing the merchandise in the store by punching numbers on it and bringing inventory from the basement to the store (non-tipped duties). The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, asserts the suit. Mr. Martinez is a former employee of Defendants La Potencia deli grocery Corp., Raikel Castillo, and Wellington Villalona Soto. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Deli/grocery, located at 320 E. 167th Street, Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 POWER SECURITY: Zewdu Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ZEWDU v. POWER SECURITY SOLUTIONS, YASEER M. HASHEMI, and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 25STCV18357 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 26, 2025) is a class action suit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals alleging that the Defendant failed to pay minimum and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendants as a security guard in Southern California. The Defendant provides private security patrol services to customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq. THE VAN VLECK LAW FIRM., LLP 5757 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 535 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (323) 920-0250 Facsimile: (323) 920-0251 E-mail: bvanvleck@vvlawgroup.com PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harris, et al., v. Progress Residential Management Services, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00859 (M.D. Fla., Filed May 7, 2024), the Hon. Judge Carlos E. Mendoza entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. The deadline to file a motion for class certification is July 18, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC] RITCHIE TRUCKING: Surreply on Settlement Notice Ordered in Imber ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brandon Imber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bruce Lackey, Pam Lackey, Lackey Family Trust, Cole Scharton, The Administrative Committee of the People Business Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Miguel Paredes, Rick Roush, Del Thacker, Richard DeYoung, and Ritchie Trucking Service Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00004-HBK (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California directed defendants to file a limited surreply. The Court addressed a dispute regarding the language in the proposed Class Action Notice for a preliminary settlement approval. On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff Imber filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The defendants, including Bruce Lackey, Pam Lackey, Lackey Family Trust, Cole Scharton, The Administrative Committee of the People Business Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Miguel Paredes, Rick Roush, Del Thacker, Richard DeYoung, and Ritchie Trucking Service Holdings, Inc., submitted a statement of non-opposition on June 4, 2025, agreeing to the settlement but requesting a modification to the Class Action Notice. The original notice stated: "As the debt from the 2018 ESOP Transaction decreases the value of Ritchie Trucking Service Holdings, Inc. ('Ritchie') stock, the reduction in that debt reduction will result in a release of 115,000 shares from the ESOP's Suspense Account and should increase the value of Ritchie stock held by the ESOP. According to the defendants, at least one defendant proposed modifying the notice to: "Class counsel contends that as the debt from the 2018 ESOP Transaction decreases the value of Ritchie Trucking Service Holdings, Inc. ('Ritchie') stock, the reduction in that debt reduction will result in a release of 115,000 shares from the ESOP's Suspense Account and should increase the value of Ritchie stock held by the ESOP." The defendants argued this change clarified that the statement was class counsel's contention. On June 16, 2025, Imber opposed the modification, arguing that the original notice's statements were based on the ESOP Trustee's valuation report and the settlement agreement, and thus were not reasonably disputable. Imber proposed an alternative notice: "As the ESOP Trustee’s valuation advisor has concluded that the debt from the 2018 ESOP Transaction decreases the value of Ritchie Trucking Service Holdings, Inc. ('Ritchie') stock, the provision in the Settlement Agreement that reduces that debt by $1.4 million as of January 1, 2024 will result in a release of 115,000 shares from the ESOP’s Suspense Account. Additionally, reducing the debt of Ritchie by $1.4 million as of January 1, 2024 should increase the value of Ritchie stock held by the ESOP from $1.60 per share to $2.26 per share (or an increase of 67 cents per share) and should immediately increase the value of all stock held by the ESOP by $1.33 million as of January 1, 2024. The court noted a typographical error in both the original and defendant-proposed notices, which Imber acknowledged should be corrected to: "the reduction in that debt will result in a release." The court directed the defendants to file a surreply, addressing whether they agreed to Imber’s revised notice or had specific objections. It reminded the parties to do their part to avoid unnecessary motion practice, including by reaching agreement and filing stipulations whenever possible. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LacRA5 SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Dolgicer Over 8.01% Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL DOLGICER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS, INC., DOUGLAS S. INGRAM, DALLAN MURRAY, and LOUISE RODINO-KLAPAC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05317 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sarepta securities between June 22, 2023, and June 24, 2025, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements that conditioned investors to believe ELEVIDYS was a safe therapy that could be expanded for wider application approval. Defendants also misled investors concerning ELEVIDYS's revenue outlook. Defendants positioned ELEVIDYS as having no hindrances to broader use, which would in turn allow for a strong growth in prescriptions. In truth, the Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's compliance, operations, and outlook. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that ELEVIDYS posed significant safety risks to patients. On March 18, 2025, Sarepta issued a safety update on ELEVIDYS announcing that a patient had died following treatment with ELEVIDYS. On this news, Sarepta's stock price fell $27.81 per share, or 27.44%, to close at $73.54 per share on March 18, 2025. Then, on April 4, 2025, Sarepta disclosed that European Union member country authorities had requested that the independent data monitoring committee meet to review death announced on March 18, 2025. Sarepta simultaneously halted recruitment and dosing in some of the ELEVIDYS clinical studies. On this news, Sarepta's stock price fell $4.18 per share, or 7.13%, to close at $54.43 per share on April 4, 2025. Next, on June 15, 2025, Sarepta disclosed a second patient had died of acute liver failure following treatment with ELEVIDYS. The Company announced it was suspending shipments of ELEVIDYS for non-ambulatory patients while Sarepta took time to evaluate trial regimens and discussed findings with regulatory authorities. Sarepta also revealed that it was pausing dosing in one of its ELEVIDYS clinical studies. 8. On this news, Sarepta's stock price fell $15.24 per share, or 42.12%, to close at $20.91 per share on June 15, 2025. Finally, on June 24, 2025, the United States Food and Drug Administration issued a Safety Communication announcing it had received reports of two deaths and was investigating the risk of acute liver failure with serious outcomes following treatment with ELEVIDYS. The communication noted that the FDA was evaluating the need for further regulatory action. On this news, Sarepta's stock price fell $1.52 per share, or 8.01%, to close at $17.46 per share on June 25, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Sarepta is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company headquartered that focuses on RNA and gene therapies for the treatment of rare diseases. During the Class Period, Sarepta was engaged in the development of therapies to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy, including ELEVIDYS. ELEVIDYS is a prescription gene therapy intended for a limited category of people with Duchenne.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Gabriel Mandler, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com SELIP & STYLIANOU: Tomaine Loses Bid for Summary Judgment --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY TOMAINE, v. SELIP & STYLIANOU, LLP, Case No. 2:20-cv-00156-BRM-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The Court further orders that the Plaintiff's Motion for class certification is denied. Selip is a law firm, specializing in debt collections. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=haIK7s at no extra charge.[CC] SIMPLISAFE INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLISAFE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04860 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://simplisafe.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. While attempting to navigate Defendant's website, Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired persons who need screen-readers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations 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. Headquartered in Boston, MA, Simplisafe, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers home security systems for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SOLEIL COLLECTIVE: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. SOLEIL COLLECTIVE LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05281 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. 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 Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because the Defendant's interactive website, https://www.cocoandeve.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. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that 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. SOLEIL COLLECTIVE LLC, operates the Coco and Eve online retail store, as well as the Coco and Eve 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. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. 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 dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Ballardo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonesta International Hotels Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Cesar Ballardo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation, Sonesta Redondo Beach LLC, Case No. 25STCV18227 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sonesta International Hotels Corporation -- https://www.sonesta.com/ -- is an American hotel company founded in 1937 and headquartered in Newton, Massachusetts.[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 SONOS INC: App Redesign Affects Devices' Performance, Goodrow Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAYMOND GOODROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SONOS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05776 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2025) alleges that Defendant's App Redesign substantially degraded the performance of Sonos Devices such that users could not use many of the features that caused them to buy Sonos Devices in the first place. According to the complaint, the Company quickly faced a deluge of user complaints. In the wake of this debacle, hundreds of employees were fired and the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Thomas Spence, abruptly stepped down. Multiple Sonos speakers can be connected to the same system to play audio simultaneously without being connected by wiring. Sonos products are installed and controlled using an application (app) that Sonos has developed for devices running iOS or Android operating systems, or on a desktop computer (later replaced by a web app run via an Internet browser). This Sonos app is necessary for full use of Sonos products. The App must be used to install new devices, change their settings, or troubleshoot issues. In addition, it can control audio playback, such as choosing songs (or other audio sources like podcasts) to play, creating a playlist or "queue" of songs, and changing the volume, among other basic functions, says the suit. The app is also used to change which speakers in a Sonos system are playing. For instance, a user can use the app to transition music playing from a speaker in their dining room to one in their living room. One key feature of the Sonos App is that it supports scores of outside music streaming services, such as Spotify and Apple Music. By connecting these services to the Sonos App, a user can search all of their connected services simultaneously, play songs from all of them, and even create a playlist or queue with songs from multiple services. Sonos periodically releases updates to the Sonos App. These usually involve minor changes. On May 7, 2024, however, Sonos released what it called a "redesign" of the app (the "App Redesign"), which was substantially different than the prior version. Plaintiff Raymond Goodrow has been a resident of Massachusetts at all relevant times. He is the owner of a Sonos Play:1 speaker and a Sonos One SL speaker. He downloaded the App Redesign in or around May 2024, and he saw descriptions of the App Redesign issued by Sonos before or during the download process. After downloading the App Redesign, he has experienced significant performance problems that he did not experience with prior versions of the Sonos App, says the Plaintiff. Sonos sells a variety of products, including speakers, amplifiers, and network audio streamers, that are capable of streaming music directly from online streaming services or from other audio sources connected to the Internet or a user's home wireless network.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com STEPHEN F. AUSTIN: Discriminates Female Student Athletes, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Awtrey, writing for KLTV, reports that female athletes at Stephen F. Austin University have filed a sex discrimination class action lawsuit against the school, alleging Title IX infractions against female student-athletes. The federal lawsuit alleges SFA violates Title IX by depriving women of equal opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics. The lawsuit comes on the heels of SFA's announcement to drop the sports of women's beach volleyball, women's bowling, women's golf and men's golf. SFA female athletes Sophia Myers, Kara Kay, Ryann Allison, Elaina Amador, Berklee Andrews, and Meagan Ledbetter are plaintiffs in the case. Along with the class action, the women filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction seeking a court order preserving the three women's teams while the case proceeds. That has been set for July 30-31 at the federal courthouse in Lufkin. [GN] SUN ENERGY: Lawrence Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. SUN ENERGY SERVICES LLC d/b/a DEEP WELL SERVICES, Case No. 2:23-cv-02155-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and Final Certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In this wage-and-hour action, the Plaintiff Lawrence alleges that certain compensation policies implemented by the Defendant have been in violation of the overtime provisions of the FLSA, and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant, seeks to recover unlawfully withheld overtime compensation based on Defendant’s improper compensation policies that result in failure to pay overtime wages owed to the Field Service Employees under the FLSA, and the NMMWA. The Plaintiff, through their First Amended Complaint, the Answer, submissions of sworn deposition testimony, Answers to Interrogatories, and other record evidence produced in discovery, has provided sufficient evidence for the Court to rule that the requirements for a damages class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) have been met. Sun provides oilfield services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KImSds at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 800 Town and Country Blvd. Suite 500 Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 E-mail: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com SUSNJ INC: Chen Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- AN CHEN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUSNJ, INC d/b/a Sushi Express; MIANNJ, INC d/b/a Mr. Mian Noodle House; KKNJ, INC d/b/a King Kong Express CHUANQIN ZHENG a/k/a Chuan Qin Zheng a/k/a Henry Zheng, and WEN GAO a/k/a Alex Gao, Case No. 2:25-cv-12207 (D.N.J., June 26, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgement interest, and/or attorney's fees and cost. pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. From Nov. 1, 2022, to Jan. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a Sushi Chef for Defendants at American Dreams, East Rutherford, New Jersey. The Defendants operate a restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 TD BANK: Stevens Class Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-08311-RMB-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff may submit an amended complaint that remedies the deficiencies identified herein within 30 days. An accompanying Order shall issue on this date. In sum, each of Plaintiff's causes of action rests on the premise that TD wrongfully disclosed the Plaintiff's personal financial information to a third party. Yet there are no well-pled allegations as to what personal financial information belonging to Plaintiff was allegedly improperly disclosed. The Plaintiff's failure to "explain the nature of the personal [financial] information allegedly captured by Meta Pixel" is fatal to each of his claims. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Complaint in its entirety without prejudice on this ground. The Plaintiff brings this putative nationwide class action against Defendant alleging that TD utilized certain third-party data tracking technology to improperly collect and disclose his and other customers’ personal financial information to third parties, specifically Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”), without notice or consent The Plaintiff commenced this action on Aug. 6, 2024, by filing a Class Action Complaint against the Defendant on behalf of himself and all individuals similarly situated. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of TD customers, as well as subclasses of residents of New York and five other states. TD operates an online financial services platform at www.td.com, through which its customers can access account information and apply for financial products such as loans and credit cards. A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8ROvnG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 The Defendant is represented by: Susan M. Leming, Esq. BROWN & CONNERY, LLP 360 Haddon Avenue Westmont, NJ 08108 TRIDENT MARITIME: Settlement Deal in Jefferson Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON OATES JEFFERSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRIDENT MARITIME SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00375-LMB-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) directing issuance of Class Notice pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1); (2) appointing Shannon Oates Jefferson as Representative Plaintiff; (3) appointing the Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel; (4)  granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement; (5) approving the form and manner of notice and in the Settlement Agreement; and (6) setting a date for a final approval fairness hearing. The proposed Settlement Class includes: "All persons Trident identified as being among those individuals impacted by the Data Breach, including all who were sent a notice of the Data Breach." The proposed Settlement secures several benefits for the Class. First, Trident will deposit $210,000 into a non-reversionary Settlement Fund. The case is a data breach class action alleging that Trident failed to protect its consumers' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"), during which there was unauthorized access to Trident's computer network. The Data Security Incident occurred between Feb. 1, 2023, and Feb. 10, 2023, and the Plaintiff contends that Trident allowed access to proposed Class Members' PII, including their personal information such as names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. On Feb. 27, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an action against Trident in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Defendant offers engineered maritime solutions, specializing in cryogenic insulation, marine outfitting, system integration, automation, hybrid propulsion, energy management, scrubber installation and environmental solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vqChGW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - David Hilton Wise, Esq. Dylan Scout Graham, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM PLC 10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro dgraham@wiselaw.pro The Defendant is represented by: James Davidson, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER One East Wacker Dr., Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 422-6148 E-mail: jdavidson@ohaganmeyer.com TTE TECHNOLOGY INC: Bid for Class Cert in Herrick Due Oct. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHAN HERRICK, v. TTE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00945-SB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an case management order as follows: Pretrial Conference: June 5, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: Oct. 24, 2025 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: Nov. 7, 2025 Reply Brief in Support of Class Certification: Nov. 21, 2025 Motion for Class Certification Hearing: Dec. 12, 2025 Discovery Deadline – Expert: Feb. 27, 2026 Discovery Motion Hearing Deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Non-Discovery Motion Hearing Deadline: March 13, 2026 The parties, their counsel, and their witnesses should be prepared to trail for up to 30 days from the trial date if needed. TTE designs and markets televisions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uzx7nY at no extra charge.[CC] UCM MEDICAL: Faces McCullar Suit Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- TIANA MCCULLAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UCM MEDICAL GROUP SUB, LLC d/b/a UCHICAGO MEDICINE MEDICAL GROUP and NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06462 (N.D. Ill., June 10, 2025) arises from Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard approximately 38,656 individuals' (including Plaintiff's) personally identifiable information and personal health information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and medical information. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the data breach, which occurred between approximately July 5, 2024, and July 11, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Headquartered in Harvey, IL, UCM Medical Group Sub, LLC operates as an academic medical health system with hospitals, outpatient clinics and physician practices throughout Chicago, its suburbs and Northwest Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. Riley W. Prince, Esq. Nicholas W. Blue, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com rprince@barnowlaw.com nblue@barnowlaw.com UNITED STATES: Appalachian Voices Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APPALACHIAN VOICES, et al., v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01982-PLF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class: "All entities that received awards from the EPA authorized in whole or in part by 42 U.S.C. section 7438 Which EPA then terminated after Jan. 20, 2025 (including statutory partners)." The class excludes the plaintiffs in Sustainability Institute v. Trump, No. 25-cv-2152- RMG (D.S.C.) or Green & Healthy Homes Initiative, Inc. v. EPA, No. 25-cv-01096 (D. Md.) and excludes entities whose awards were expressly terminated for identified financial or performance failures. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint all named Plaintiffs as class representatives and Southern Environmental Law Center, Earthjustice, and Public Rights Project as class counsel. The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants’ termination of the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Programs violates the U.S. Constitution’s Separation of Powers and Presentment Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. sections 551 et. seq. For the reasons explained in the accompanying memorandum of law, Plaintiffs asks this Court to grant this motion and enter the attached Proposed Class Certification Order. Environmental is an agency of the United States federal government whose mission is to protect human and environmental health. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dfBGs9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben Grillot, Esq. Kimberley Hunter, Esq. Irena Como, Esq. James Whitlock, Esq. SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER 122 C Street NW, Suite 325 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 828-8382 Facsimile: (202) 347-6041 E-mail: bgrillot@selc.org kmeyer@selc.org icomo@selc.org jwhitlock@selc.org - and - Hana V. Vizcarra, Esq. Deena Tumeh, Esq. Linnet Davis-Stermitz, Esq. Molly Prothero, Esq. Andrew Saavedra, Esq. EARTHJUSTICE 1001 G Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 667-4500 E-mail: hvizcarra@earthjustice.org dtumeh@earthjustice.org ldavisstermitz@earthjustice.org mprothero@earthjustice.org asaavedra@earthjustice.org Counsel for Allegheny County, Kalamazoo County, King County, Native Village of Kipnuk, City of Sacramento, City and County of San Francisco, City of Springfield, and Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency and Proposed Class Counsel Toby Merrill, Esq. Graham Provost, Esq. Elaine Poon, Esq. PUBLIC RIGHTS PROJECT 490 43rd Street, Unit #115 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (510) 738-6788 E-mail: toby@publicrightsproject.org graham@publicrightsproject.org elaine@publicrightsproject.org Counsel for City and County of San Francisco and Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency David Chiu, Esq. Yvonne R. Mere, Esq. Mollie M. Lee, Esq. Sara J. Eisenberg, Esq. Julie Wilensky, Esq. SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY 1390 Market Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 554-4274 E-mail: yvonne.mere@sfcityatty.org mollie.lee@sfcityatty.org sara.eisenberg@sfcityatty.org julie.wilensky@sfcityatty.org Counsel for Martin Luther King, Jr. County David J. Hackett, Esq. Alison Holcomb, Esq. OFFICE OF KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY LEESA MANION 401 5th Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 477-9483 E-mail: David.Hackett@kingcounty.gov aholcomb@kingcounty.gov UNITED STATES: Ewing Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAISHA EWING et al., v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Case No. 1:24-cv-10732-KMW-SAK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying collective action and to facilitate notice to potential collective members The Plaintiffs requests that this Court grant Plaintiffs’ request for Court authorization for: (1) the Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs a list of all similarly situated CCAs and PTFs within the period beginning three years prior to Nov. 25, 2024, and continuing through the present, (2) the proposed Notice letter, attached as EXHIBIT T, to be sent to all similarly situated current and former CCAs and PTFs nationwide (within the applicable limitations period) by mail, email, and text, in addition to posting the proposed Notice letter in conspicuous locations visible to all employees at each of USPS’s Post Office facilities; and (3) the proposed Consent to Join form, attached as EXHIBIT U, also to be sent to all similarly situated current and former CCAs and PTFs nationwide (within the applicable limitations period) by mail, email, and text, which similarly situated employees can complete and file with the Court. The Plaintiffs seek the Court's authorization to facilitate notice to the following collective: "All hourly-paid CCAs and PTFs who worked for the Defendant within the last three years and who were credited/paid for at least at least thirty-seven point five (37.5) hours in one or more workweeks." The putative collective consists of: "all current and former hourly-paid USPS CCAs and PTFs who worked for USPS at any time within the three (3) years preceding this Motion, and who were credited with having worked at least thirty-seven point five (37.5) hours or more in any workweek during that time period." The Plaintiffs are current and former hourly-paid USPS City Carrier Assistants ("CCAs") and Part-Time Flexible workers ("PTFs") employed by the United States Postal Service ("USPS") to carry mail and perform related duties during the applicable limitations period, and who was paid for at least thirty-seven point five (37.5) hours in one or more workweeks during that period. US Postal provides mail processing and delivery services to individuals and businesses in the U.S. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LT67aQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Frisch, Esq. Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Ste 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com AMurthy@forthepeople.com UNITED STATES: Snow Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEAN ALLEN SNOW, v. KNOWN AND UNKNOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL, Case No. 5:24-cv-05089-LLP (D.S.D.), the Hon. Judge Lawrence Piersol entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. That the Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(I and ii) and Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and The Plaintiffs motion to stay his state court domestic proceedings, state court criminal proceedings, and his related sex offender registration requirement is denied pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To summarize, the Court has dismissed Courts III, IV, V, and VII for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissed Counts I, II, and VI for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although unnumbered as a separate claim, in liberally construing the Plaintiffs complaint, he also alleges a claim for defamation and assault and battery. Like Count VI, however. Plaintiffs Complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to support either claim. The Plaintiff filed a pro se lawsuit alleging various torts and constitutional violations related to state court proceedings involving criminal convictions as well as child custody and guardianship determinations. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0QnPph at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED WHOLESALE: Discloses Customers Info to Meta, Allison Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ETHAN ALLISON, and MARK CALOCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, Case No. 3:25-cv-05377 (N.D. Cal., June 26, 2025) addresses the Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing -- without consent—the Nonpublic Personal Information and Personally Identifiable Financial Information (Personal and Financial Information) of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc., Google, LLC, Microsoft Corp., LinkedIn, CrazyEgg, lordofthesuperfrogs.com, and Dynatrace, and possibly others (collectively the Third Parties). According to the complaint, to provide services, UWM operates and encourages its customers to use its website, https://www.uwm.com/, on which customers can, among other things, learn about UWM, access their account information, manage their mortgage, and obtain information about UWM's services. Despite its unique position as a mortgage lender and servicer, UWM used its Website to blatantly collect and disclose Consumers' and Customers' Personal and Financial Information to Third Parties uninvolved in the provision of mortgage services -- entirely without their knowledge or authorization. UWM did so by knowingly and secretly configuring and implementing code-based tracking devices into its Website, asserts the suit. UWM is a mortgage lender and servicer that provides services to customers across the globe and the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Lyons, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: nlyons@cohenmalad.com vmiller@cohenmalad.com VESYNC CORP: Chen Suit Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VESYNC CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04458-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order allowing it to file documents under seal Vesync engages in the research and development, manufacture, and sale of smart household appliances. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k3Hz2c at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Sarah Carlson, Esq. Judith Shophet Sidkoff, Esq. Adriane Peralta, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 12230 El Camino Real Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 398-0150 Facsimile: (858) 398-0450 E-mail: sarah.carlson@sidley.com judith.sidkoff@sidley.com adriane.peralta@sidley.com VIA RENEWABLES: Clark Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CLARK, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VIA RENEWABLES, INC, F/K/A SPARK ENERGY, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00568-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure for an order certifying the case as a class action. The Plaintiff's motion seeks certification of the class since all requirements of subsections (a) and (b)(3) are met in this case. The class numbers in the hundreds of thousands, the claims are common, the named plaintiff is typical, and the representation by the named plaintiff and counsel are more than adequate. Via is an independent retail energy services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3wIZpp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Reichman, Esq. Justin Prato, Esq. PRATO & REICHMAN, APC 3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (619) 683-7971 E-mail: ChrisR@Prato-Reichman.com WALMART INC: Sued Over Discriminatory Use of Criminal Records ------------------------------------------------------------- MARK BALENTINE and LASEANT SARDIN, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated laborers, known and unknown, v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07131 (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2025) seeks relief from Walmart's discriminatory use of criminal records screenings. According to the complaint, these screenings perpetuate proven racial discrimination in the criminal legal system by transposing its disparities onto job applicants, including those who have shown previously that they can do the job they seek. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief on behalf of themselves and all other Black applicants to Walmart previously employed by Schneider Logistics and sought employment as Walmart employees at Walmart Distribution Center No .7078 in Elwood, Illinois., The Plaintiffs are two former logistics workers, both of whom were employed for years loading, unloading, and inspecting goods at a Walmart distribution center in Elwood, Illinois. Accordingly, as part of this process, Walmart required long-time logistics workers to renew their employment in similar or identical positions, but as Walmart employees. The Plaintiffs, alongside a class of similarly situated Schnieder Logistics workers who sought to continue their positions as Walmart employees, were then not re-hired or were offered positions only to have those offers revoked soon after based on their criminal records. The Plaintiffs and a similarly situated class of workers were thereby effectively terminated from jobs they had performed for months or years based on the arbitrary, discriminatory use of criminal records screening by Walmart, says the suit. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets (also called supercenters), discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States and 23 other countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin L. Herrera, Esq. Mark H. Birhanu, Esq. Jamitra Fulleord, Esq. Esmeralda Limon, Esq. Raise the Floor Alliance -- Legal Dept. 1 N. LaSalle St., Ste 1275 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 795-9115 - and - Patrick Cowlin, Esq. Nieves Bolanos, Esq. Hawks Quindel S.C. 111 E. Wacker Dr, Ste 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 262-7517 E-mail: pcowlin@hq-law.com mnbolanos@hq-law.com WAWA INC: 3rd Cir Upholds Settlement, $3.2MM Fee Award ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement and the $3.2 million attorney's fee award in the case In re: Wawa, Inc. Data Security Litigation, Case No. 2:19-cv-06019 (E.D. Pa.). The case stemmed from a 2019 data breach at Wawa, Inc., a convenience store chain, compromising payment card information across approximately 850 locations. The chain sells fuel as well as convenience store items such as coffee, pastries, and milk. During the cyber incursion, which gave rise to this litigation, hackers stole payment information, including credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates, and cardholder names on cards used at all Wawa stores and fuel dispensers. Judge Gene E. K. Pratter of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania confirmed that the class met the requirements of numerosity, given the large number of affected individuals; commonality, due to shared questions about the breach's cause, Wawa's duty to protect data, and resulting harm; typicality, as plaintiffs' claims aligned with those of the class; and adequacy, with experienced counsel representing the class' interests. The Court further determined that common questions predominated over individual issues under Rule 23(b)(3). No objections were raised regarding class certification, and the class action status remained undisputed on appeal. Settlement Terms and Approval Upon careful examination, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 30, 2021, and final approval on April 20, 2022, deeming it "fair, reasonable, and adequate" under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23(e)(2). The settlement provided tiered relief to class members: Tier 1: A $5 Wawa gift card for customers who spent time monitoring credit statements, capped at $6 million with a $1 million floor. Tier 2: A $15 gift card for those resolving fraudulent charges, capped at $2 million. Tier 3: Up to $500 in cash for documented out-of-pocket losses, capped at $1 million. The gift cards were fully transferable, non-expiring, and applicable to any Wawa product, distinguishing them from coupon settlements. Additionally, Wawa committed to injunctive relief, formalizing a $25 million investment in security enhancements initiated in February 2020. This included retaining a security firm for compliance assessments, conducting annual penetration tests, encrypting payment information at sale terminals, and maintaining written security policies. According to the Court, these measures directly addressed class members' privacy concerns, providing tangible benefits beyond monetary relief. The Court noted that the settlement was negotiated at arm's-length during a 12-hour mediation session on September 15, 2020, supervised by experienced mediator Diane Welsh. The claims process and notice procedures, including in-store updates, a settlement website, and a press release, were deemed sufficient to inform class members of available relief. Attorney's Fee Award The District Court approved a $3.2 million attorney's fee award, comprising $3.04 million in fees, $45,940 in litigation expenses, and approximately $100,000 for settlement administration. The Court evaluated the fee's reasonableness using the Gunter factors. The settlement benefited over 560,000 class members with gift cards and all class members with injunctive relief. Objections were limited to Theodore Frank, a frequent class action objector. Class counsel, experienced in complex litigation, charged a reasonable blended hourly rate of $653. Data breach litigation was inherently complex, though the case's short duration was neutral. The contingency basis increased counsel's risk of nonpayment. Counsel devoted nearly 6,000 hours to the case. The fee was lower than awards in comparable data breach cases. A lodestar cross-check, calculating 5,942 hours at $653 per hour, yielded $3.877 million with a 0.78 multiplier, well below the typical range of one to four, reinforcing the fee's reasonableness. The Court concluded that basing the fee on funds made available, rather than claims paid, was justified given the meaningful benefits provided. Objections and First Appeal (Wawa I) Class member Theodore Frank objected, arguing that the 2.56% claims rate was low, the attorney's fee was disproportionate, and the settlement contained a "clear sailing" agreement and a fee reversion clause, suggesting potential collusion. On November 2, 2023, the Third Circuit in Wawa I (85 F.4th 712) vacated the fee award and remanded for the District Court to: (1) assess the fee's reasonableness in proportion to class benefits and (2) scrutinize any side agreements. Frank contended that the fee should be capped at 25% of actual claims paid and that Paragraph 78, requiring Wawa to cooperate in providing information for the fee petition, constituted a clear sailing agreement. He also criticized an initial fee reversion clause, which would have returned unawarded fees to Wawa, though this was removed in the Third Amended Settlement Agreement, redistributing any shortfall to Tier 1 and Tier 2 claimants. Remand Proceedings On remand, Judge Pratter conducted hearings on December 5, 2023, and February 2, 2024, and issued a decision on April 9, 2024. The Court found no clear sailing agreement, as Paragraph 78 only obligated Wawa to provide information, not to refrain from contesting the fee request. The Court credited sworn declarations from class and defense counsel, including Wawa's counsel Gregory Parks, who testified that negotiations were hard-fought and free of collusion. Frank conceded no collusion occurred, framing the issue as a potential conflict of interest. The Court also determined that the fee reversion was unintentional, resulting from an assumption that the full $3.2 million would be awarded, and was promptly corrected in the final settlement. According to the Court, no evidence suggested collusion or harm to the class, and the settlement process was transparent and robust. Third Circuit's Affirmation The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment. Upon careful examination, the Third Circuit held that Judge Pratter adhered to the Wawa I mandate by thoroughly scrutinizing side agreements and concluding none existed. The Third Circuit found no clear error in her determination that no collusion occurred, supported by counsel's testimony and Frank's concession. The Third Circuit rejected Frank's claim that the fee should be based solely on claims paid, endorsing a flexible approach considering the funds made available and the injunctive relief’s value. According to the Third Circuit, the gift cards, approximating cash due to their transferability and lack of expiration, and the injunctive relief, addressing privacy concerns, provided meaningful benefits. The Appeals Court noted that Wawa's pre-settlement security investments were informal, and the settlement's enforceable commitment added real value. The 2.56% claims rate was consistent with similar low-harm data breach cases, and the Gunter factors and lodestar cross-check supported the fee's reasonableness. Therefore, the Third Circuit affirmed, ensuring class members receive the promised benefits. A copy of the Third Circuit Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wZYEaR WESTGATE RESORTS: Bid Exclude Nusbaum's Opinions Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN MOORE, et al., v. WESTGATE RESORTS LTD., L.P., a/k/a Westgate Resorts, LTD., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00410-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jill E. McCook entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude certain opinions of Howard Nusbaum. On Sept. 25, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, and later, on July 17, 2020, they filed the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs generally claim that Defendants "use a high-pressure scheme that involves convincing prospective purchasers to buy into [their] vacation timeshare program while failing to adequately disclose material and legally required information to buyers." Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they also seek to bring this action on behalf of others, defining their proposed class as: "All residents of the United States and its territories who purchased from [Defendant] a "floating use plan" vacation timeshare property at the Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg from Sept. 25, 2008[,] through the date of class certification." On May 1, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the class and to appoint class counsel The Plaintiffs are purchasers of timeshares at Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort. Westgate operates as a resort development company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iCeWiH at no extra charge.[CC] WESTGATE RESORTS: Bid to Exclude Werner's Opinions Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN MOORE, et al., v. WESTGATE RESORTS LTD., L.P., a/k/a Westgate Resorts, LTD., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00410-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jill E. McCook entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to exclude opinions of Dan Werner. The Court finds that Dr. Werner is qualified to offer his opinions. The Court declines to exclude the entirety of Part IV of Dr. Werner's report but excludes certain paragraphs as irrelevant. While the Court finds his Dilution Value Approach unreliable, the Court declines to exclude the Market Value and the Restricted Use Value Approaches. In sum, given Dr. Werner's professional background, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that Dr. Werner is more likely than not qualified to render his opinions in this case. The Defendants also state Dr. Werner has not offered "any statistical methodology, he has not identified what will serve as the basis for such opinions, or how [the] same would be reliable." The Plaintiffs counter that this Court denied their motion to compel seeking Defendants' booking and reservation information because it related to the merits of the case instead of class certification. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they also seek to bring this action on behalf of others, defining their proposed class as: "All residents of the United States and its territories who purchased from [Defendant] a "floating use plan" vacation timeshare property at the Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg from Sept. 25, 2008[,] through the date of class certification." On May 1, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the class and to appoint class counsel. Westgate operates as a resort development company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UZpFfn at no extra charge.[CC] Y-MABS THERAPEUTICS: Class Fund Distribution in Securities Case OKd ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Arun Subramanian of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Motion for Distribution of Class Action Settlement Fund in the case captioned as IN RE Y-MABS THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00431-AS (S.D.N.Y.). The Court granted the Motion for Distribution of Class Action Settlement Fund after considering all materials and arguments submitted, including the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion and the Declaration of Sarah Evans Concerning the Results of the Claims Administration Process dated May 20, 2025. Judge Subramanian approved the administrative determinations of Strategic Claims Services, the Claims Administrator, in accepting and rejecting claims. The administrative determinations accepting those claims set forth in Exhibits B-1 and B-2 to the Evans Declaration were approved. The administrative determinations rejecting those claims set forth in Exhibits D and E of the Evans Declaration were also approved. Any person asserting claims filed after December 12, 2024, and any responses to deficiency and rejection notices received after April 25, 2025, are finally and forever barred from asserting such claims. Funds currently in the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to the Authorized Claimants, identified in Exhibits B-1 and B-2 to the Evans Declaration. They will be distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund set forth in the Notice. Judge Subramanian approved the distribution plan for the Net Settlement Fund as set forth in the Evans Declaration and accompanying exhibits. The balance of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Authorized Claimants. The checks for distribution to Authorized Claimants will bear the notation "CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION 180 DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE." Lead Counsel and the Claims Administrator were authorized to locate and contact any Authorized Claimant who has not cashed their check within the specified time. The Court ordered that Authorized Claimants who fail to negotiate a distribution check within the time allotted or consistent with the terms outlined in the Evans Declaration will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Settlement. Judge Subramanian ordered that if any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund by reason of uncashed checks or otherwise, then after the Claims Administrator has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized Claimants cash their distribution checks, any balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund at least six months after the initial distribution shall be used in the following order: first, to pay any amounts mistakenly omitted from the initial disbursement; second, to pay any additional settlement administration fees, costs, and expenses, including those of Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator as may be approved by the Court; and finally, to make a second distribution to eligible claimants. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9UAZ2s YORK WALLCOVERINGS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $225,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ClaimDepot reports that Consumers who received a notice from York Wallcoverings Inc. regarding a data incident in April 2024 may be eligible to claim up to $5,000 from a class action settlement. York Wallcoverings Inc. agreed to pay $225,000 to settle a class action lawsuit related to a data breach that allegedly exposed personal information, including Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and bank account details of certain current and former employees. Who can file a data breach claim? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They reside in the United States and are a current or former employee of York Wallcoverings. -- They were identified by the claims administrator as someone whose personal information was potentially compromised in the data incident that began on or around April 11, 2024. -- They received a notice from York Wallcoverings Inc. regarding the 2024 data breach. How much is the class action settlement payout? Class members can select from these benefits: -- Credit monitoring: All class members can select to receive two years of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection through IDX. -- Documented ordinary loss expense reimbursement: Class members can submit for up to $350 for documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the data incident. Eligible expenses include: -- Fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or identity theft insurance products -- Attorney or accountant fees -- Costs to freeze or unfreeze credit -- Postage and gasoline for local travel -- Lost time reimbursement: Class members may claim up to four hours of lost time at $20 per hour, for a maximum $80, for time spent responding to the data incident. This amount is included within the $350 cap for ordinary losses. -- Extraordinary loss reimbursement: Class members may also submit for up to $5,000 for proven, unreimbursed monetary losses resulting from actual, documented identity theft or fraud more likely than not caused by the data incident. Documentation of reasonable efforts to seek reimbursement from other sources is required. -- Alternative cash payment: Class members who do not claim ordinary or extraordinary losses or lost time may submit for a flat $50 payment. -- The $50 payment can be selected in addition to credit monitoring. How to claim a data breach class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a claim form by the Sept. 10, 2025 deadline. Claim options are as follows: -- File a claim online -- Download and print the PDF claim form, complete it and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: York Wallcoverings Data Settlement, c/o Claims Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Required proof and information -- Notice ID and confirmation code from official settlement notice required to submit a claim online or by mail -- Ordinary loss reimbursement claims require third-party documentation, such as receipts, bills or bank and credit card statements -- Extraordinary loss reimbursement claims require documentation showing the identity theft or fraud, proof of monetary loss and an explanation of why it was more likely than not caused by the data incident. Claimants must also include proof of how other sources of reimbursement were exhausted, such as insurance. Claim payment options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Check mailed to the address provided on claim form York Wallcoverings data breach settlement fund The settlement fund will include: -- Payments to approved claimants: Up to $225,000 -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined, paid separately from the $225,000 claimant fund -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $130,000 -- Service award to the class representative: Not to exceed $2,500 -- Credit monitoring services: Provided separately and not deducted from the $225,000 claimant fund Important dates -- Exclusion deadline: Aug. 11, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 10, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 16, 2025 When is the York Wallcoverings data breach settlement payout date? Payments will be issued to approved claimants after the court grants final approval of the settlement and all claim processing is complete. Why did this class action lawsuit and settlement happen? This class action lawsuit was filed after York Wallcoverings experienced a data breach in April 2024, which exposed sensitive personal information of certain current and former employees. The plaintiffs claimed York failed to adequately protect this information. York Wallcoverings denied any these allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continuing litigation. [GN] ********* 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 ***