250723.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 23, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 146
Headlines
6961 JUNIPER BLVD: Sanango Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Kohli, Handel Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs
AFLAC INC: Condren Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
AFLAC INC: Phillips Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Marshall Says
AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Canfield Says
AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dougherty Says
AHOLD DELHAIZE: Reid Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
ALLBIRDS INC: Bids Seeking Case Dismissal Due Aug 27
AMERICAN INCOME: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Decow Says
AMERICAN WELL: Aids Heap to Access Patients' Info, Polk Claims
ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bernard Says
ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Buracker Says
ARAGVI M LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tikhomirov Alleges
AUSTIN, TX: Pena Files ADA Suit in W.D. Texas
AVIDXCHANGE HOLDINGS: Zappia Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements
BARCLAYS BANK: Merritt Granted 30 Days to File Amended Complaint
BAYMARK HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Weller Alleges
BELK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Castillo Suit Says
BERKOT LTD: Neumann Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
BERWICK INSURANCE: Bland Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
BLESSING CORPORATE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Whitford Says
BMS CAT: Skovron Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
BRIDGES EXPERIENCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Little Alleges
BRIGHTSTONE TRANSITIONS: Schauer Sues Over Unpaid Wages
BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH, PA: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Oct. 10
BUNZL DISTRIBUTION: Torres Suit Removed to C.D. California
CANADA: Judge Certifies Class Action Lawsuit Over Fuel Surcharges
CAPE COD HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses ECPA Claim in Goulart Suit
CENTRAL BANK OF KANSAS: Court Denies Most Claims in Card Fee Suit
CHESTERFIELD DEVELOPMENT: Mellenthin Sues Over Access to Property
CHICAGO HOTEL: Faces Brown Class Suit Over Room Rates' Hidden Fees
CLEARSTAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Claims in Runyon Suit Partly Granted
COLEWILLAIDAN LLC: Berard Sues Over Mislabeled Salmon Products
COMMUNITY CARE: W.D. New York Okays Notice to Beh Class Members
COMPASS GROUP: Aug. 18 Hearing on Bosco Bid to Revive Class Suit
COMPASS MINERALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Waite Alleges
COMPUMEDICS USA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hill Alleges
COMPUMEDICS USA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Elsewhere Alleges
COWIN & COMPANY: Orr Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
CRACKER BARREL: Appeals Court Rejects Certification of FLSA Action
CURRENT HOME: Trippett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
DESIGNER BRANDS: Rosen Law Probes Securities Law Violations
DOLCE & GABBANA: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Non-Fungible Token
DRINK LMNT: Thomas Sues Over Mislabeled Drink Mix Products
E.I. DUPONT: Agrees to Settle Contamination Class Suit for $27MM
EXOTIC SNACK: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges
FASHION NOVA: Settles Blind-Inaccessible Website Suit for $5.15MM
FAST EASY: Coffey Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Weimer Says
FINNLEYS GOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Says
FLEET QUEST: Bid to Certify Class Held in Abeyance
GOOGLE LLC: Spouse Replaces Deceased Plaintiff in Gift Card Case
GUARDIAN TERMITE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Waligora Says
HAPPY HIPPO: Faces Boyce Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
HEART TO HEART: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
HELLO PRODUCTS: Toothpaste Contains Heavy Metals, Browne Alleges
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Court Orders Repleading of Class Claims
J. QUEEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Suit Alleges
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hoon Alleges
JYOTSNA PROPERTIES: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Suit Says
KREWE DU OPTIC: Villaverde Sues Over Unlawful Calls
LEE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Arp Alleges
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Johansen Suit
MAINLINE HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Carter Alleges
MB GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Besnier Suit Alleges
META PLATFORMS: Henderson Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
MONSANTO COMPANY: Adeeb Product Liability Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
MXR IMAGING INC: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NATIONAL HOCKEY: World Appeals Antitrust Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
NAVITAS LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Alleges
NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA: Becker Files Suit in D. Delaware
OCUCO INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Leland Suit Says
OLO INC: M&A Investigates Sale to Thomas Bravo for $10.25 Per Share
ORKIN LLC: Charles Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
PETALUMA HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Gerson Suit to 9th Cir.
PETALUMA HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Johnson Suit to 9th Cir.
RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Dobrovic Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
READY CAPITAL: Quinn Class Action Consolidated with Goebel Suit
SARAYA USA: Grimbaldeston Sues Over Mislabeled Sweetener Product
SEMA4 HOLDINGS: Defendants' Answer to Helo Suit Due July 24
SHADE STORE: Faces Eisenberg Class Suit Over Legacy Motor Defect
SNAP INC: Hilbert Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Mobile Apps
SOUTHERN VALLEY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Brief Reply
SPINDRIFT BEVERAGE: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
SSA GROUP: Hicks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STE. MICHELLE WINE: Gerber sues Over Inaccessible Establishment
STRATEGY INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in E.D. Va.
SUNRISE CREDIT: Record Phone Calls Without Consent, Suits Says
SUSSEX PUBLISHERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Section 631 Claim
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Becerra-Paez Appeals Case Dismissal
T & DS LUBE: Court Certifies Oilfield Workers Class in Lyles Suit
TEAK NEW: Hernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
TIGER MIST: J'Nae Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Guirgis Files Suit in S.D.N.Y.
UNIFIN INC: Yoder Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses 2nd Amended Sobirjanov Suit v. ICE, DHS
UNITED STATES: Watts Files APA Suit in E.D. Virginia
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Asis Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
VALNET INC: Maketa Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
WAKE COUNTY, NC: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid to 4th Circuit
WAKEMED HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Fund, Tillery Alleges
WALGREEN CO: Hicks Suit Removed to C.D. California
WESTERN ASSET: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 5
WHITEPAGES INC: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Clark Class Suit
XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Alvrus Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
ZENITH ELECTRONICS: Kalampoukas Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
ZETA GLOBAL: Ayerdi Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
ZETA GLOBAL: Faces A.P. Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
[] Europe's Privacy Groups Take on Big Tech With Breach Suits
*********
6961 JUNIPER BLVD: Sanango Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Sanango and Sergio Tepox, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. 6961 JUNIPER BLVD SOUTH CORP. d/b/a
ERASMO RISTORANTE ITALIANO, and MAURICIO TROIA a/k/a MAURIZIO
IROIA, and JOHANN A. TROIA, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-03771
(S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to
recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages and minimum wages; unpaid
overtime compensation; unpaid "spread of hours" premiums for days
when they worked a span in excess of 10 hours; liquidated damages
pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act; prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Law by
engaging in a practice of failing to pay its employees, including
Plaintiffs, wages, minimum wages and overtime compensation for all
hours over 40 each workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.
6961 Juniper Blvd South Corp., is a domestic business entity,
organized and existing under the laws of the State Of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
Email: info@jepclaw.com
ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Kohli, Handel Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York approved a stipulation appointing Nitin Kohli
and the Handel Family Limited Partnership and Stanley Handel as
co-lead plaintiffs in the securities class action captioned as
NITIN KOHIL, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANDESH
SETH, AVINASH DESAI, MADHURI VUSIRIKALA, and SERGIO GIRALT,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02553-JPO (S.D.N.Y.).
The Court granted the joint appointment and approved their
selection of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A. as co-lead counsel.
Case Background and Class Action Status
On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff Nitin Kohli filed this securities
class action alleging that from October 31, 2022, through August 2,
2024, Actinium Pharmaceuticals and certain of the Company's senior
officers and board members defrauded investors in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. This case is
confirmed as a class action seeking to represent all investors who
purchased Actinium Pharmaceuticals securities during the specified
class period.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Process
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
on March 27, 2025, counsel for Kohli published a notice on Business
Newswire which alerted investors to the pendency of the Action and
the deadline of May 27, 2025 to file a motion seeking Lead
Plaintiff status. The statutory deadline to file a motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff expired on May 27, 2025.
On May 27, 2025, Kohli timely filed a motion seeking appointment as
Lead Plaintiff and approval of his selection of Scott+Scott
Attorneys at Law LLP as Lead Counsel for the class. On the same
date, Handel Family Limited Partnership and Stanley Handel timely
filed a motion seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff and approval
of its selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel for
the class.
Financial Interest and Qualifications
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act establishes a
presumption that the "most adequate plaintiff" is the "person or
group of persons" that "has the largest financial interest in the
relief sought by the class" and "otherwise satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
Kohli and the Handel Family have similarly sized losses of over
$600,000 each, and therefore have the "largest financial interest"
in the relief sought by the class in the Action.
Plaintiff Qualifications and Experience
Kohli, a sales director, is a sophisticated investor with over 20
years of investing experience. The Handel Family led by Stanley
Handel, a retired doctor, is a sophisticated investor with over 40
years of investing experience. Both parties satisfy the relevant
requirements of Rule 23 in addition to possessing the largest
financial interest in the outcome of the litigation.
Stipulation Agreement
Kohli and the Handel Family concluded that a protracted dispute
concerning Lead Plaintiff appointment in this Action is not in the
best interests of the class and that jointly prosecuting this
Action would be appropriate and assist with the speedy and
efficient litigation of the action. Both parties are committed
investors with significant financial interests in prosecuting this
securities class action.
The parties agreed that they are committed to supervising the
conduct of this litigation by their counsel and to ensuring that
counsel coordinate appropriately and avoid duplication of effort in
the conduct of the litigation. They believe it is in the best
interests of the class for them to work together to efficiently
litigate the Action as Lead Plaintiff, and for their choice of
counsel, Scott+Scott and Rosen to serve as Lead Counsel.
Court's Approval and Orders
The court granted the motions to appoint Kohli and the Handel
Family as Lead Plaintiff. Pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, Kohli and the Handel Family are appointed as
Lead Plaintiff in the Action. Pursuant to PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), Scott+Scott and Rosen are appointed as Lead
Counsel in the Action.
The court ordered that pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, any pending, subsequently filed, removed, or
transferred actions that are related to the claims asserted in the
Action are consolidated for all purposes.
The Action will be captioned "In re Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation" and the file will be maintained under Master
File No. 1:25-cv-02553-JPO.
AFLAC INC: Condren Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aflac, Inc. The case
is styled as Christopher Condren, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Aflac, Inc., Case No.
4:25-cv-00222-CDL (M.D. Ga., July 8, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Aflac -- -https://www.aflac.com/ -- provides an additional layer of
financial protection for millions of Americans and their families
in the event of a serious accident or illness.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Casondra Turner, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay ST, Ste. 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: cturner@milberg.com
AFLAC INC: Phillips Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aflac, Inc. The case
is styled as Ventoura Phillips, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Aflac, Inc., Case No.
4:25-cv-00223-CDL (M.D. Ga., July 8, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Aflac -- -https://www.aflac.com/ -- provides an additional layer of
financial protection for millions of Americans and their families
in the event of a serious accident or illness.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marybeth V. Gibson, Esq.
4279 Roswell Rd., Ste. 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Phone: (678) 642-2503
Email: cturner@milberg.com
AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Marshall Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC
and HANNAFORD BROS. CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00549
(M.D.N.C., July 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within their network systems following a data
breach between November 5 and 6 of 2024. The Defendants also failed
to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
Ahold Delhaize USA Services LLC is a services provider for grocery
stores in the U.S., headquartered in North Carolina.
Hannaford Bros. Co., LLC is a subsidiary of Ahold Delhaize USA
Services LLC, headquartered in Scarborough, Maine. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matt Norris, Esq.
NORRIS LAW FIRM PLLC
1776 Heritage Center Drive, Suite 204
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Telephone: (919) 981-4475
Facsimile: (919) 9926-1676
Email: matt@lemonlawnc.com
- and -
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Email: byrd@whafh.com
- and -
Carl Malmstorm, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
James F. Woods, Esq.
Annie E. Causey, Esq.
WOODS LONERGAN
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd St., Suite 1410
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 684-2500
Email: jwoods@woodslaw.com
acausey@woodslaw.com
- and -
Jon Tostrud, Esq.
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 278-2600
Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
- and -
Erik Langeland, Esq.
ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C.
733 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 354-6270
Email: elangeland@langelandlaw.com
AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Canfield Says
------------------------------------------------------------
AUTUMN CANFIELD and STEVEN BANVILLE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00585 (M.D.N.C., July 10, 2025) alleges that the
Defendant failed to secure and safeguard consumers' and former and
current employees' personally identifiable information and, in some
instances, protected health information that was compromised as a
result of a widespread and preventable data breach impacting
approximately 2.2 million individuals.
The Data Breach involved PII and PHI that Ahold collected from its
various subsidiaries, including Hannaford Supermarkets, Fresh
Direct, Pea Pod, Food Lion, and Giant Food, among others, in
connection with the operation of its business, and which Ahold
failed to timely disclose.
Accordingly, Ahold failed provide timely, accurate and adequate
notice to Plaintiffs and other Class members that their PII/PHI had
been taken by an unauthorized third party and that thus that they
were faced with imminent danger of identity theft, fraud and the
misuse of their PII and PHI for over seven months.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy these harms on behalf of
themselves, and all similarly situated individuals whose PII/PHI
was accessed during the Data Breach.
The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by Defendant, and each
received a letter dated June 26, 2025, informing them that their
personal data, including their social security numbers, had been
accessed without authorization during a cybersecurity incident.
The Defendant, the parent company and service provider for several
major grocery retailers throughout the United States, including
Hannaford Supermarkets, Food Lion, Giant Food, The Giant Company,
Stop & Shop, FreshDirect, Peapod Digital Labs, Retail Business
Services, and ADUSA Distribution, negligently or recklessly failed
to secure sensitive consumer and employee data against foreseeable
cyber threats.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jean S. Martin, 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
- and -
William B. , Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dougherty Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS DOUGHERTY and CLIFTON HOLLOWAY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC,
FOOD LIONS, LLC, AND GIANT FOOD, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00583
(M.D.N.C., July 10, 2025) is a class action on behalf of all
persons who entrusted the Defendants with sensitive personally
identifiable information and protected health information that was
impacted in a data breach that Defendants publicly disclosed in
June 2025.
The Private Information reportedly exposed in the breach includes
some of the most sensitive types of data that cybercriminals seek
in order to commit fraud and identity theft. As a result of
Defendants' negligence, from approximately November 5, 2024, and
November 6, 2024, cybercriminals were able to gain access to
Defendants' internal U.S. business systems, which contain data
records and sensitive and valuable Private Information.
Accordingly, information disclosed in the Data Breach includes but
is not limited to names or other personal identifiers, contact
information (postal and email address, and telephone number, health
information, social security numbers, driver's license numbers,
passport, financial account information, and employment related
information.
Plaintiff Dougherty resides in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Dougherty was an employee of Giant and provided his PII to
Defendants as a condition of his employment.
Ahold is one of the largest food retails in the United States,
Europe, and Indonesia with over $104 billion in sales and 393,000
associates working in over 9,400 local stores, the suit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC
P.O. Box 54
Asheville, NC 28802
Telephone: (828) 316-6902
E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com
- and -
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP
FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
AHOLD DELHAIZE: Reid Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Reid and Madison Lucas, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-00573-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C., July 8, 2025), is brought arising
out of Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt,
and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired
and stored for its business purposes.
Due to Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the
Data Breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's
computer systems and exfiltrate highly sensitive and personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information") belonging to
Plaintiffs and Class members. As a result of this Data Breach,
Plaintiffs' and Class members' Private Information of remains in
the hands of those cybercriminals.
However, despite apparently learning of the Data Breach on or about
November 6, 2024, and determining that Private Information was
involved in the breach, Defendant did not begin sending notices to
the victims of the Data Breach (the "Notice of Data Breach
Letters") until June 26, 2025.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect Plaintiffs' and Class members'
Private Information with which it was entrusted for either
employment or treatment or both.
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the
Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiffs'
and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to
Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take
steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks
left that network in a dangerous condition, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were Ahold employees and enrolled in its benefits
programs.
The Defendant represents itself as the "largest grocery retail
group on the East Coast."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC
PO Box 54
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone: (828) 316-6902
Email: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com
- and -
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Phone: (215) 867-2399
Email: medelson@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.com
ALLBIRDS INC: Bids Seeking Case Dismissal Due Aug 27
----------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs Qu Jinghua and Yau Noi have filed a third amended
complaint in the case titled GENNADY SHNAYDER, et al., Plaintiffs
v. ALLBIRDS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01811-AMO
(N.D. Cal.), to, among other things, state that the Company's Class
A common stock, the subject of the litigation, is traceable to the
Forms S-8 filed on November 3, 2021 or March 28, 2022 each of which
incorporated the Registration Statement by reference -- in addition
to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's November 2021 initial public offering as stated
in the previous versions of the complaint. The proposed Plaintiff
class also includes purchasers of Allbirds securities between
November 4, 2021 and March 9, 2023, inclusive.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California says the Defendants may file a
motion seeking dismissal of the amended complaint by August 27,
2025. Opposition is due by October 13, 2025, and replies to the
Opposition are due November 12, 2025.
Judge Martinez-Olguin previously granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend.
The lawsuit is a proposed securities fraud class action brought on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Allbirds Class A common stock and other Allbirds
securities between Nov. 4, 2021, and March 9, 2023. Lead
Plaintiffs Qu Jinghua and Yau Noi bring claims for violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Allbirds, its co-chief executive officers and co-founders Joseph
Zwillinger and Timothy Brown, its chief financial officer Michael
Bufano, its directors Neil Blumenthal, Dick Boyce, Mandy Fields,
Nancy Green, Dan Levitan, and Emily Weiss, and its underwriters
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA
Securities, Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, William Blair
& Company, Piper Sandler & Co., Cowen and Company, LLC, Guggenheim
Securities, LLC, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus &
Company, Incorporated, Telsey Advisory Group LLC, C.L. King &
Associates, Inc., Drexel Hamilton, LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC,
Penserra Securities LLC, Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc., and
Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC previously moved to dismiss the
Lead Plaintiffs' claims in the Second Amended Complaint and, in
connection with their motion, seek judicial notice of 20 documents.
The Lead Plaintiffs oppose the motion and take no position on the
request for judicial notice.
With no prior retail experience, Zwillinger and Brown founded
Allbirds in 2015. The company started selling products in 2016 as a
direct-to-consumer online retailer. It then expanded into the
traditional retail sector by opening brick-and-mortar locations.
At its core, Allbirds is a footwear company that uses natural
materials to construct its products, including wool, eucalyptus
pulp, Brazilian sugarcane, and trino. Footwear represents the
majority of the Allbirds' revenue and brand. The lifestyle and
performance shoes among Allbirds' core products are the Wool
Runner, launched in 2016, the Tree Runner, launched in 2018, and
the Dasher, launched in 2020.
Focusing on these products, Allbirds experienced tremendous growth
as a direct-to-consumer company. In 2018, Allbirds became a
billion-dollar unicorn thanks to a growing wave of awareness among
consumers of the environmental impact of fast fashion, i.e.,
inexpensive clothing produced rapidly by mass market retailers in
response to the latest trends.
On Aug. 31, 2021, Allbirds filed its Registration Statement on Form
S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which forms part
of the Challenged Registration Statement. After a series of
amendments, on Oct. 25, 2021, Allbirds filed its final amendment to
the Registration Statement with the SEC on Form S-1/A, which forms
part of the Challenged Registration Statement. The Registration
Statement was declared effective on Nov. 2, 2021, and on Nov. 4,
2021, Allbirds filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC,
which also forms part of the Challenged Registration Statement.
In its IPO, Allbirds sold approximately 16,850,799 shares of Class
A common stock at a price of $15 per share, generating
approximately $237 million from the offering. The underwriters
received discounts and commissions of approximately $22 million.
After Allbirds' stock dropped to $1.06 per share, Gennady Shnayder
filed an initial class action complaint on April 13, 2023. A second
putative class action -- Delgado v. Allbirds, Inc., No.
3:23-cv-02372-AMO -- followed on May 16, 2023. The Court related
the actions on June 16, 2023. On July 25, 2023, the Court
consolidated the two related cases, appointed Yau Noi and Qu
Jinghua as Lead Plaintiffs, and approved their selection of
Pomerantz LLP as interim lead counsel.
On Sept. 15, 2023, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.
The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint
with leave to amend on May 10, 2024. The Lead Plaintiffs filed the
operative consolidated second amended complaint ("SAC") on June 24,
2024. On Sept. 5, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the SAC, with a request for judicial notice. The Lead Plaintiffs
filed their opposition to the motion on Nov. 4, 2024, with no
response to the Defendants' request for judicial notice. The
Defendants filed their reply in support of the motion on Dec. 4,
2024.
The Defendants seek judicial notice of Exhibits A-T, and
additionally ask that Exhibits A-E, G-L, and N-T be deemed
incorporated by reference. The exhibits include Allbirds' Form
S-1/A Registration Statement, press releases for financial results,
and transcripts of Allbirds' earnings calls.
Given the references in the SAC to Exhibits A-E, G-L, and N-T,
Judge Martinez-Olguin finds those exhibits are properly
incorporated by reference. and are proper subjects of judicial
notice.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the SAC with prejudice because the
Lead Plaintiffs impermissibly base their claims on a theory of
fraud by hindsight. With respect to the Lead Plaintiffs' Section 11
claim specifically, the Defendants argue that the Lead Plaintiffs
have failed to plead sufficient facts establishing that their
shares are traceable to the Registration Statement and that not one
of the misstatements or omissions on which the Lead Plaintiffs base
their Section 11 claim is actionable.
With respect to the Lead Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim, the
Defendants argue that the Lead Plaintiffs fail to plead an
actionable false statement or omission, a strong inference of
scienter, loss causation, or the requisite scheme under Rule 10b-5.
As for the derivative claims under Sections 15 and 20(a), the
Defendants argue that those are subject to dismissal for lack of an
adequately pleaded primary claim under Section 11 or Section
10(b).
While alleging that the plaintiff's shares are "directly traceable"
to the offering in question might well suffice when all of the
company's shares were issued in a single offering under a single
registration statement, here, further factual enhancement is needed
because by definition not all of the company's shares will be
directly traceable to the offering in question, Judge
Martinez-Olguin opines, citing In re Century Aluminum Co. Sec.
Litig., 729 F.3d at 1107. The Lead Plaintiffs may, thus, not rely
on a cursory allegation that their stock is traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's IPO
to establish statutory standing, Judge Martinez-Olguin holds.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Section 11 claim for lack of statutory standing,
without reaching the parties' remaining arguments about the claim.
The derivative Section 15 claim is also dismissed. Because the
Plaintiffs may be able to state a Section 11 claim, as well as a
derivative Section 15 claim, if they can in good faith add
allegations that their shares are directly traceable to
Registration Statement, the Court cannot conclude amendment would
be futile, and therefore, grants the motion with leave to amend.
The Lead Plaintiffs identify several statements as giving rise to
their claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.
Viewed individually or holistically, Judge Martinez-Olguin finds
none of these allegations is sufficient to give rise to a strong
inference of scienter. The Lead Plaintiffs' allegations that the
Defendants knew the statements made to the public were false or
misleading because they were so hands on that it would be absurd to
suggest they lacked such knowledge are not adequately pleaded.
Judge Martinez-Olguin opines that the purported admissions the
Defendants made on March 9, 2023, are likewise insufficient to
support a strong inference of scienter. Judge Martinez-Olguin
points out, among other things, that the Lead Plaintiffs' reliance
on confidential witness statements is also misplaced.
For these reasons, whether taken individually or holistically,
Judge Martinez-Olguin concludes that the Lead Plaintiffs'
allegations fail to give rise to a strong inference of scienter.
The Defendants' motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted as to the
Lead Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim and, consequently, as to the
derivative Section 20(a) claim.
Because the Lead Plaintiffs may be able to state additional good
faith allegations sufficient to state a viable Section 10 claim, as
well as a derivative Section 20 claim, the Court cannot conclude
amendment would be futile, and therefore, grants the motion with
leave to amend.
For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants the
Defendants' motion and request for judicial notice. Should the Lead
Plaintiffs wish to file a further amended complaint, they may do so
within 21 days of this order. The amended complaint must be
accompanied by the redline required by the Court's Standing Order
for Civil Cases Para. H.1, with courtesy copies delivered to
chambers within three days of filing.
The Court also puts the parties on notice that in the event either
side fails to sufficiently address any particular statement in
future briefing, the Court may deem any arguments as to that
statement waived.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/d8x6ncad from PacerMonitor.com.
AMERICAN INCOME: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Decow Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PATSY DECOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE CO., Case No.
6:25-cv-00295 (W.D. Tex., July 10, 2025) alleges that the Defendant
failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' protected health information and personally identifying
information, and the preventable data breach of the Defendant's
inadequately protected computer systems.
On October 2, 2024, cybercriminals hacked into the Defendant's
computer network systems and stole the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' stored sensitive, confidential PHI and PII, including
their name, date of birth, address, email address, phone number,
Social Security Number, health-related information, and policy
information (e.g., policy date), causing widespread injuries to
Plaintiff and Class Members (the Data Breach).
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former clients of
Defendant who, in order to obtain insurance services from
Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their
sensitive, non-public Private Information.
The Defendant is a life insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
AMERICAN WELL: Aids Heap to Access Patients' Info, Polk Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA POLK and ASHLEY LAGUNA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN WELL CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01856-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal., July 1, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and
the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, invasion
privacy under California's Constitution, and intrusion upon
seclusion.
According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees
with, and otherwise enables third-party Heap Inc. to intercept
patients' communications while using the LiveHealth Online Website,
the LiveHealth Online iOS App, and/or the LiveHealth Online Android
App without consent. The Defendant integrated Heap's tracking
technology into the Website, iOS App, and Android App which serves
to track and disclose patients' activity including their protected
health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information
(PII). As a result of the above actions, the Plaintiffs and Class
members have been damaged due to the unauthorized interception,
disclosure, and use of their confidential communications, says the
suit.
American Well Corp. is a healthcare services provider, with its
principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Scott R. Drury, Esq.
DRURY LEGAL, LLC
6 Carriage Lane
Highwood, IL 60040
Telephone: (312) 358-8225
Email: scott@drurylegal.com
ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bernard Says
--------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD BERNARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-02290-ELH (D. Md., July 15, 2025) is a class
action arising out of the Defendant's failure to properly secure,
safeguard, encrypt, and timely and adequately destroy the
Plaintiff' and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable
information that it had acquired and stored for its business
purposes.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's data
security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in or about
February 2025 to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach")
that contained personally identifiable information and protected
health information (collectively, "the Private Information") of
Plaintiffs and other individuals.
Despite learning of the Data Breach on or about May 13, 2025, and
determining that Private Information was involved in the breach on,
the Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach
until July 14, 2025.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information
with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or
both, says the suit.
Anne Arundel Dermatology, P.A. provides dermatological services.
The Company offers general and pediatric dermatology, surgery
centers, cosmetic dermatology, and skin care products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (213) 471-4161
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
ANNE ARUNDEL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Buracker Says
---------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA BURACKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02279 (D. Md., July 14, 2025) is an
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated patients'
personally identifiable information and protected health
information, including name, address, date of birth, patient ID,
medical record number, health history, and insurance information
(the "Private Information"), from criminal hackers.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members have
suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing
increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of
harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their
Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred
to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach.
Anne Arundel Dermatology provides dermatological services. The
Company offers general and pediatric dermatology, surgery centers,
cosmetic dermatology, and skin care products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sonjay Singh, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: ssingh@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
ARAGVI M LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tikhomirov Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAVEL TIKHOMIROV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARAGVI M LLC d/b/a ARAGVI; and
MIKHEIL ZAZASHVILI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05691 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 10, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Tikhomirov was employed by the Defendants as a server.
Aragvi M LLC owns and operates a restaurant in New Yor, New York,
doing business under the name "Aragvi". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
Shawn R. Clark, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
sclark@faruqilaw.com
AUSTIN, TX: Pena Files ADA Suit in W.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of Austin,
et al. The case is styled as Lauren B. Pena, individually and as
next friend of her minor children, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The City of Austin, Housing Authority of the
City of Austin, John 1-10 Does, Case No. 1:25-cv-01067-ADA-DH (W.D.
Tex., July 8, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Austin -- https://www.austintexas.gov/ -- is the state capital of
Texas, an inland city bordering the Hill Country region.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
AVIDXCHANGE HOLDINGS: Zappia Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ZAPPIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVIDXCHANGE HOLDINGS, INC.; MICHAEL PRAEGER;
JAMES HAUSMAN; J. MICHAEL MCGUIRE; TERESA MACKINTOSH; LANCE
DRUMMOND; ASIF RAMJI; SONALI SAMBHUS; ONI CHUKWU; and A.J. RUBADO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05727 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2025)
alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's claims arise in
connection with the solicitation of public stockholders of Avid to
vote in favor of the proposed sale of Avid to TPG Global, LLC and
Corpay, Inc. in exchange for payment of $10.00 per share in cash
("Transaction Consideration") to Avid stockholders (the
"Transaction"). Notably, TPG had first explored a possible
investment in Avid in 2020, prior to Avid's initial public offering
in October 2021, and thereafter had from time to time discussed
Avid's performance with certain members of Avid management.
On June 17, 2025, the Defendants authorized the filing of a false
and misleading preliminary proxy on Schedule 14A with the SEC. The
Proxy contains materially false statements, and material omissions
that render statements therein misleading, that violate the
above-referenced Exchange Act provisions and constitute breaches of
fiduciary duty under Delaware law. The foregoing violations and
breaches must be cured in advance of the Stockholder Vote to enable
Avid stockholders to cast informed votes with respect to the
Transaction, alleges the suit.
AvidXchange Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides accounts payable,
automation software, and payment solutions for middle market
businesses and their suppliers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
Monsey, NY 10952
Telephone: (845) 290-6818
Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
Email: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com
BARCLAYS BANK: Merritt Granted 30 Days to File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California denies James Staley's motion to
dismiss and granted in part Barclays Bank PLC's motion to dismiss
in the case captioned as Stephen Merritt, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Barclays Bank
PLC, James E. Staley, and Nigel Higgins, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-09217-MEMF-KS (C.D. Cal.).
The Court dismissed Counts 1 and 2 against Nigel Higgins only for
claims based on his declination to comment on Staley's departure,
without leave to amend, and dismissed Count 3 with leave to amend,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure
to state a claim. The plaintiffs were granted 30 days to file an
amended complaint.
This case concerns a securities class action on behalf of all
persons or entities who (1) purchased or acquired Barclays American
Depository Receipts ('ADRs') traded on the New York Stock Exchange
('NYSE') from July 22, 2019, through October 12, 2023, inclusive
(the 'Class Period') and/or (2) purchased or acquired Barclays
ordinary shares traded on the London Stock Exchange ('LSE') during
the Class Period.
The plaintiffs, Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit
Fund, Teamsters Local 237 Supplemental Fund for Housing Authority
Employees, and the Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis, were
appointed lead plaintiffs on January 2, 2024.
Defendant Barclays Bank is a multinational bank and publicly held
company headquartered in London." Defendant James E. Staley served
as CEO from December 1, 2015, to October 31, 2021, and defendant
Nigel Higgins has served as Group Chairman since May 2019.
In July 2019, Jeffrey Epstein's arrest prompted a New York Times
article describing a longstanding relationship between Epstein and
Staley. "On August 15, 2019, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority
('FCA') contacted Higgins to request a written response detailing
how the Board had satisfied itself that there was no impropriety in
the relationship between Staley and Epstein."
Barclays Bank sent a letter to the FCA on October 8, 2019, stating:
"(1) Staley did not have a close relationship with Epstein; (2)
Staley had not seen anything that would have suggested the
misconduct by Epstein; and (3) Staley's last contact with Epstein
was 'well before he joined Barclays in 2015.'" U.S. investigators
later sent Barclays Bank emails between Epstein and Staley, leading
to an internal investigation in 2020. On February 13, 2020,
Barclays Bank disclosed the FCA investigation and issued statements
affirming Staley's transparency.
On October 29, 2021, the FCA shared preliminary findings, and on
November 1, 2021, Barclays Bank announced Staley's immediate
resignation. On October 12, 2023, the FCA issued a decision notice
finding that Staley acted "recklessly" in approving the 2019
letter, which contained misleading statements. That day, Barclays
Bank issued a press release disclosing Staley's forfeiture of
£17.8 million in awards, and "the price of Barclays ADRs and
ordinary shares declined by 4.99% and 3.12% respectively."
The First Amended Complaint alleges three claims: (1) Count 1:
Violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act, alleging defendants knowingly or recklessly made
material misrepresentations, inflating Barclays Bank's ADR prices;
(2) Count 2: Violation of Section 20(a), alleging defendants, as
controlling persons, participated in conduct which inflated ADR
prices; and (3) Count 3: Violation of Section 90A of the UK's
Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA), brought by the Firemen
against Barclays Bank, alleging dishonest concealment of material
facts.
Staley moved to dismiss, arguing the plaintiffs failed to plead
material misstatements and loss causation. Barclays Bank and
Higgins argued similarly, adding that scienter was insufficiently
pleaded and that the court should decline jurisdiction over Count 3
under forum non convenience or supplemental jurisdiction
principles.
Upon careful examination, the court denied Staley's motion and
granted Barclays Bank's motion in part.
The court granted both defendants' requests for judicial notice of
public documents, including press articles, SEC filings, stock
price data, the USVI complaint, and the FCA Decision Notice, "only
for the purposes of showing information available in the public
realm during the Class Period."
Count 1: Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
The court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded material
misrepresentations, scienter, and loss causation. "A statement is
considered misleading if it 'would give a reasonable investor the
impression of a state of affairs that differs in a material way
from the one that actually exists.'"
A July 2019 New York Times article quoted a Barclays Bank
spokesperson stating, "Mr. Staley has never engaged or paid fees to
Mr. Epstein to advise him, or to provide professional services,"
which the court found plausibly misleading, as "the relationship
between Staley and Epstein was close and personal enough" to
involve professional guidance without formal payment. Statements in
the 2020 press release and 2019 Annual Report claiming Staley's
relationship with Epstein was purely professional were also
misleading, as Barclays Bank had emails revealing otherwise.
Staley's February 2020 conference call statements about limited
contact with Epstein were similarly misleading. The court found
these statements material, noting, "the simple fact that Barclays
Bank initiated an investigation and that FCA initiated an
investigation shows at the very least that it was plausible that
the information was material."
For scienter, the court found a "strong inference" of intent, as
"Barclays Bank and Higgins received evidence revealing the true
nature of Staley's relationship with Epstein as early as December
2019, and yet continued to make statements fully in support of
Staley." Loss causation was sufficiently alleged, as the FCA
Decision Notice and 2023 press release "could plausibly have caused
the alleged loss" through a stock price drop on October 12, 2023.
However, the court dismissed claims against Higgins based on his
declination to comment on Staley's departure, finding it not
misleading, without leave to amend.
Count 2: Section 20(a)
The court denied dismissal of Count 2, as a primary violation was
sufficiently pleaded under Count 1.
Count 3: Section 90A of FSMA
The court retained jurisdiction over Count 3 under diversity
jurisdiction, rejecting Barclays Bank's forum non conveniens
argument, as "the UK would not necessarily be a better forum for
the entire case and all Plaintiffs." However, the court found Count
3 insufficiently pleaded under a "dishonest delay" theory, as the
2023 press release was based on the FCA's final determination, not
earlier knowledge. The court granted dismissal with leave to amend,
stating, "it may be possible for the Firemen to cure the deficiency
through amendment."
The court ordered as follows. The Staley Motion to Dismiss is
denied, and the Barclays Bank Motion to Dismiss is granted in
part.
The court dismisses Counts 1 and 2 against Higgins to the extent
that they are based on Higgins' declination to comment on Staley's
departure only. The court dismisses Count 3 for violations of
Section 90A of the FSMA with leave to amend. Any amended complaint
must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.
The court denied Staley's motion to dismiss, finding sufficient
allegations of securities fraud, but granted Barclays Bank's motion
in part, dismissing specific claims against Higgins and the FSMA
claim with leave to amend. The plaintiffs have 30 days to file an
amended complaint to address the deficiencies.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PshS5g
BAYMARK HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Weller Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER WELLER individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYMARK HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:25-cv-01811-B (N.D. Tex., July 10, 2025) alleges that
the Defendant failed to safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information by allowing cyberthieves to access
Defendant's computer network and systems which contained unsecured
and unencrypted Private Information.
According to the complaint, on or around September 24, 2024, an
unknown actor gained access to the Defendant's inadequately
protected computer systems. As a result, the Plaintiff and the
Class Members, have had their personal identifiable information and
private health information including their Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, dates of birth, services received, dates
of service, insurance information, treating providers, and
treatment/diagnostic information (collectively, "Private
Information") exposed in the Data Breach.
The Defendant failed to detect this unauthorized access for weeks.
During that time, the cybercriminals had free reign to do whatever
they wanted with Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Private
Information. Even then, Defendant waited to notify the class
members. Around May 2024, that Defendant began notifying the
victims of the Data Breach. Due to the Defendant's negligence,
cybercriminals obtained everything they needed to commit identity
theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of
thousands of individuals, says the suit.
BayMark Health Services, Inc. provides medication-assisted
treatment services. The Company offers substance use disorder
treatment, opioid treatment programs, outpatient and inpatient
withdrawal management, residential treatment, and mental health
treatment services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
4131 Central Express Way, Ste. 900
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (800) 237-1277
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
jaw@federmanlaw.com
BELK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Castillo Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CASTILLO, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BELK INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-00497-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C., July 10, 2025) alleges that the
cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on
cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents,
contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the
personally identifiable information of Plaintiff, and failed to
maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the
Class's PII -- rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals.
On May 8, 2025, Belk discovered it had lost control over its
computer network and the highly sensitive personal information
stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by
cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). The Data Breach has impacted
several thousands of current and former consumers.
Belk's breach differs from typical data breaches because it affects
consumers who had no relationship with Belk, never sought one, and
never consented to Belk collecting and storing their
information. Following an internal investigation, Defendant
learned that, between May 7 and May 11, 2025, cybercriminals had
gained unauthorized access to consumers' PII, including but not
limited to their names and Social Security numbers, says the suit.
On June 5, 2025, over three months later, Belk finally began
notifying Class Members about the Data Breach. The Defendant's
failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims
vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their
financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of
their PII. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim
of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data
Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse, the
suit asserts.
Belk is a retail company based in Charlotte, North Carolina, in
operation for over 135 years with about 300 stores across 16 states
and an annual revenue exceeding $3.3 billion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5003
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
mweekes@milberg.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
BERKOT LTD: Neumann Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Neumann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BERKOT, LTD. D/B/A BERKOT SUPER FOODS, Case No.
3:25-cv-50291 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2025), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
personally identifiable and financial information ("PII") of
Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation:
Social Security number and driver's license number.
In the course of its business, the Defendant is entrusted with an
extensive amount of the Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. By
obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed
non-delegable legal and equitable duties to the Plaintiff and the
Class members. In December 1, 2024, an intruder gained entry to
Defendant's
database, accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, and
exfiltrated information (the "Data Breach Incident"). The Defendant
did not notify the Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident
until June 26, 2025.
The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII that was acquired in the
Data Breach Incident can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can
access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII to
criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class members face a lifetime risk
of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social
Security numbers.
The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII was compromised due to
the Defendant's negligent acts and omissions and the failure to
protect the Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. The Plaintiff
and Class Members continue to be at significant risk of identity
theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial
harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff relied on Defendant to keep their PII confidential.
The Defendant operates a retail grocery chain based in
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
520 S. Dixie Hwy, #240
Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
Phone: 954.799.5914
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
BERWICK INSURANCE: Bland Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berwick Insurance
Group LLC. The case is styled as Kelly Bland, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Berwick Insurance Group LLC,
Case No. 4:25-cv-00364-MAA (D. Ariz., July 8, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Berwick Insurance Group -- https://berwickinsurance.com/ -- is a
National Marketing Organization focused in the Senior Products
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300
Clayton, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 863-5700
Fax: (314) 863-5711
Email: croberts@butschroberts.com
- and -
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC - SAN DIEGO
9655 Granite Ridge Dr., Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92123
Phone: (602) 598-4000
Email: patti@frankelsyverson.com
- and -
Ty Derek Frankel, Esq.
FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC - PHOENIX
2375 E Camelback Rd., Ste 600
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 598-4000
Email: ty@frankelsyverson.com
BLESSING CORPORATE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Whitford Says
------------------------------------------------------------
PEGGY WHITFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLESSING CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03204-SEM-DJQ (C.D. Ill., July 11,
2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Whitford was employed by the Defendant as a healthcare
worker.
Blessing Corporate Services, Inc., (BCS) operates as an non-profit
health care organization. The Organization develops and plans new
initiatives and assists in obtaining the necessary resources to
implement a project. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin Anderson, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
BMS CAT: Skovron Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
---------------------------------------------------
Joseph Skovron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BMS CAT, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00726-P (N.D. Tex., July
8, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII")
including, but not limited to names and Social Security numbers.
Prior to and through February 24, 2025, the Defendant obtained the
PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. Prior to and through February
24, 2025, the Defendant stored the PII of the Plaintiff and Class
Members, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on
Defendant's network. On February 24, 2025, the Defendant learned of
a data breach on its network that occurred on February 5, 2025 to
February 24, 2025 (the "Data Breach").
The Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an unknown
actor potentially exfiltrated the PII of the Plaintiff and Class
Members. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit
from the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant
assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect
and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and
intrusion. The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII that was
accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized actor included names
and Social Security numbers.
The PII was compromised due to the Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of
the Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant has also
purposefully maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and
root causes of the breach and has not informed the Plaintiff and
Class Members of that information.
As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class
Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they
were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and
various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm,
including the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive
information. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff relied on this sophisticated Defendant to keep their
PII confidential and securely maintained.
The Defendant recovery and reconstruction services to mitigate
fire, water, mold and storm damage.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, Florida 33602
Phone: (813) 229-4023
Facsimile: (813) 222-4708
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 N. 11th St. #402
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 448-1125
Email: ryan@maxeyfirm.com
BRIDGES EXPERIENCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Little Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAYDEN LITTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRIDGES EXPERIENCE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:25-cv-00119-BO (E.D. Cal., July 2, 2025) is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with
sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health
Information (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted
in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in June 2025.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed
Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and
necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe
and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited,
collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Plaintiff and Class
Members Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to
implement or maintain adequate security practices.
The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and
personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed
to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to
the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained
for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information.
As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and
notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
was exposed to criminals, says the suit.
Bridges Experience, Inc. is a clinical experience platform that
works with students, universities, and hospitals to facilitate the
clinical rotations process. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC
PO Box 54
Asheville, NC 28802
Telephone: (828) 316-6902
Email: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com
- and -
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
Email: mweekes@milberg.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
BRIGHTSTONE TRANSITIONS: Schauer Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Sara Schauer, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. BRIGHTSTONE TRANSITIONS, LLC, TIMOTHY MCMAHON, and JILL
COX, Case No. 2:25-cv-00203-RWS (N.D. Ga., July 10, 2025), is
brought for systemic violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA"), seeking all unpaid wages.
The Defendants have regularly employed twenty or more Mentors a
time. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants have
had many Mentors resign because of Defendants' wage and hour
practices, among other things. The Plaintiff regularly works and
has worked for Defendants in excess of forty hours per week. The
Defendants do not and have not paid the Plaintiff for all the hours
she works and has worked in excess of forty hours per week at the
overtime rate mandated by the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began her employment with Defendants in December 2024
as a Mentor.
Brightstone is a private corporation registered to do business in
the State of Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Scott, Esq.
Jake Knanishu, Esq.
RADFORD SCOTT LLP
125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380
Decatur, GA 30030
Phone: (404) 400-3600
Email: jscott@radfordscott.com
jknanishu@radfordscott.com
BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH, PA: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Oct. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMAND BRADLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH, Case No. 2:25-cv-00155-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Timothy Savage entered an amended scheduling order:
1. All fact and expert discovery relating to class certification
shall be completed by Sept. 9, 2025.
2. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
certification no later than Oct. 10, 2025.
3. The Defendants' responses to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be filed no later than Oct. 31, 2025.
4. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the defendant's
response no later than Nov. 10, 2025.
5. Oral argument on the plaintiff's motion for class
certification shall be heard on Monday, Dec. 8, at 10:00
a.m., in Courtroom 9A.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MLFYYp at no extra
charge.[CC]
BUNZL DISTRIBUTION: Torres Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Anthony Lazaro Torres, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BUNZL DISTRIBUTION
MIDCENTRAL, INC.; BDMC ACQUISITION CORP.; BUNZL DISTRIBUTION INC.;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV16781 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 9, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-06210.
The Complaint asserts these claims on a class-wide basis: unpaid
minimum wages; unpaid overtime; failure to provide meal periods;
failure to provide rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages; failure to
provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and violation of
Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com
- and -
Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
Michelle N. Gonzalez, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: 858-652-3110
Facsimile: 858-652-3101
Email: marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com
michelle.gonzalez@ogletree.com
CANADA: Judge Certifies Class Action Lawsuit Over Fuel Surcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Western Standard reports that Canada Post is facing a certified
class action lawsuit from small businesses over fuel surcharges,
after a Federal Court judge ruled the case should proceed despite
objections from the Crown corporation.
Federal Court Justice Jocelyn Gagne approved the lawsuit on behalf
of an undetermined number of commercial customers who claim they
were unfairly charged up to 26% in fuel surcharges.
Blacklock's Reporter said Canada Post had argued the charges were
standard in the delivery industry and sought to have the case
thrown out.
"Access to justice is enhanced by resolving common questions,"
Gagne wrote in her ruling, noting that small financial claims often
deter individuals from pursuing legal action alone.
The lead law firm, Hammerco Lawyers LLP of Vancouver, declined to
say how many businesses may be affected or what total amount is in
dispute.
According to the court, Canada Post applies a fuel surcharge that
changes monthly or weekly to reflect fuel costs. In April 2024, the
surcharge was 26% for domestic deliveries and 16% for shipments to
the United States.
"The fuel surcharge is certainly obligatory," wrote Gagne. "Users
have no choice but to pay it if they want to complete the
transaction."
While Canada Post argued the surcharge was variable depending on
destination, package size and service level, plaintiffs claimed the
charges violated the Competition Act because they were not
disclosed upfront.
Canada Post responded that all pricing information is posted
transparently online.
Gagne stressed that certification of the lawsuit does not determine
whether the claim is valid, only that it qualifies to move forward
as a class action.
Canada Post has defended its use of fuel surcharges as a common
industry practice.
"Everyone uses this tool in the market," testified Serge Pitre,
vice-president at Canada Post, during 2022 parliamentary hearings.
He added that the surcharge is adjusted through a price index to
manage fluctuating fuel costs and is not tied to specific regions.
[GN]
CAPE COD HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses ECPA Claim in Goulart Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts allows Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss the Electronic Communications Privacy Act claim in the
putative class action captioned as DEBRA GOULART AND MICHAEL
GARBITT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAPE COD HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 25-10445-RGS (D.
Mass.), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
state claims and directed remand to the Suffolk County Superior
Court.
Plaintiffs Debra Goulart and Michael Garbitt filed this putative
class action claiming that defendant Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc.
(CCHC), through internet-tracking technologies, unlawfully
disclosed their private health-related information and personally
identifiable information to Facebook and Google, in violation of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510
(ECPA).
CCHC is a not-for-profit healthcare system that provides medical
services for residents and visitors of Cape Cod. It owns and
operates capecodhealth.org, a public website featuring an online
patient portal, which is password protected. Visitors with log-in
credentials may search the website for physicians, research
services and treatment options, and pay medical bills.
Users of CCHC's patient portal may also make appointments, access
medical records, view lab results, and exchange communications with
healthcare providers.
The CCHC website and patient portal embed digital marketing
trackers created by Facebook (which is owned by Meta) and Google.
These "tracking pixels" collect dozens of data points about
individual website users who interact with the site and that are
then shared with third parties. Specifically, CCHC deploys on its
website and patient portal Meta Pixel, one of the world's most
ubiquitous tracking pixels. Meta Pixel allows CCHC and Facebook "to
secretly track, intercept, record, and transmit every patient
communication made on Defendant's websites such as:
Goulart used CCHC's website to locate providers, schedule
appointments, pay for medical services, and research treatments
related to knee replacement recovery as well as cancer screening
procedures. She used the patient portal to check lab results for
biopsies and bone density tests. After using CCHC's website and
patient portal, she began receiving "online advertisements related
to her research, including knee replacement-related pain."
Garbitt used CCHC's website to research the credentials of his
primary care physician and cardiologist. He used the patient portal
to follow up on treatment he received from CCHC and to learn the
results of tests that he had undergone at Cape Cod Hospital
regarding his heart condition. Goulart and Garbitt believed that
their interactions with CCHC's website were privileged and would
not be shared with anyone other than their healthcare providers and
medical staff. They did not consent to CCHC sharing their
information with Facebook or Google.
The ECPA provides a private right of action against any person who
"intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any
other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept wire, oral, or
electronic communication." However, there are exceptions to
liability - consent and the one-party exception, which applies when
the person intercepting the communication is also a "party to the
communication." The one-party exception has its own carve-out - the
crime-tort exception. Under this exception, a party to a
communication is still liable under the ECPA when a communication
"is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or
tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States or of any State."
The crime-tort exception requires a plaintiff to "plead sufficient
facts to support an inference that the offender intercepted the
communication for the purpose of a tortious or criminal act that is
independent of the intentional act of recording or interception
itself." Specifically, "either the 'primary motivation' or a
'determinative factor' in the actor's decision to record [is] the
intent to commit a criminal or tortious act."
The court found that the Complaint fails for a basic reason. It
fails to plausibly allege that CCHC's "primary motivation" or
"determinative factor" in disclosing plaintiffs' personal health
information through the software-tracking technology to Facebook
and Google was for the purpose of committing a criminal violation
or tort, as opposed to commercial gain or convenience.
The court noted that there are facts alleged by plaintiffs
supporting the proposition that CCHC used the trackers for purposes
of marketing and advertising. For example, the Complaint states
that: CCHC used Meta Pixel and Google's software tools to knowingly
disclose information that allows Facebook, Google, and other
advertisers to target patients with ads; CCHC "made the decision to
barter its patients' PII/PHI to Facebook because it wanted access
to the Meta Pixel tool"; and in exchange for disclosing PII about
its patients, CCHC had been "compensated by Facebook with enhanced
online advertising services, including (but not limited to)
retargeting and enhanced analytics functions."
However, the court explained that commercial purposes or advantages
are not the stuff of which a crime-tort is made.
The court allowed CCHC's motion to dismiss the ECPA claim. Because
there are no factual allegations in the Complaint from which the
court could conclude that CCHC, a non-profit hospital system,
installed Meta Pixel and software-tracking technology with the
"primary motivation" of knowingly committing a violation of HIPAA
or perpetrating a tort, the Complaint fails.
Consistent with the guidance of the First Circuit, the court
declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims
and directed the Clerk to remand these claims to the Suffolk County
Superior Court.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A1N4PM
CENTRAL BANK OF KANSAS: Court Denies Most Claims in Card Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington at Tacoma grants in part and
denies in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the
case captioned as SAMUEL C. RUTHERFORD, III, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL
BANK OF KANSAS CITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-05299-TLF (W.D.
Wash.).
The Court denied Central Bank of Kansas City's summary judgment
motion on plaintiff's claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1693i and his
Washington state law claims, while granting Central Bank of Kansas
City's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim under 15
U.S.C. Section 1693l-1.
Plaintiff Samuel C. Rutherford III brought this class action suit
against Central Bank of Kansas City to recover damages for prepaid
debit card fees charged to persons released from Pierce County
Jail. Plaintiff alleges Central Bank of Kansas City violated the
Electronic Transfer Fund Act when it issued unsolicited debit cards
and charged fees that plaintiff did not agree to. Plaintiff further
alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and
contends defendant is liable for conversion and unjust enrichment
under Washington state law.
The undisputed facts establish that Pierce County Jail confiscates
cash from inmates and holds their funds in an inmate trust account.
Upon being released from custody, the balance of a releasee's funds
is returned to the individual upon their release from custody.
Stored Value Cards, Inc., doing business as Numi Financial,
contracts with a variety of companies, including commissary,
telecom, and software companies, or directly with detention
facilities to provide prepaid debit cards to detention facilities.
The prepaid card programs are used by detention facilities to
return inmate trust funds to inmates upon their release from jail.
Rutherford was incarcerated in the Pierce County Jail and was
released on April 22, 2023. At the time of booking, he had
approximately $300 cash, which was confiscated and deposited into
an account with Central Bank of Kansas City. Additional money sent
to him by others while he was incarcerated was also deposited into
this account. Upon release, plaintiff's money was returned to him
on a Central Bank of Kansas City prepaid debit card, the Numi
Prestige Prepaid Mastercard. Plaintiff alleges he requested the
return of his money in cash but was told that the prepaid debit
card was the only way for his funds to be returned to him.
The Transaction Receipt stated: "I hereby authorize and request the
return of my funds on the Numi Prestige Prepaid Mastercard and
confirm receipt of the Cardholder Agreement and Fee Schedule. I
understand the Card is active and there may be fees associated with
the use of the Card. These fees are listed in the Cardholder
Agreement and Fee Schedule. I further understand that I may choose
not to use the Card and can request a check be mailed to me in
accordance with the terms set forth in the Cardholder Agreement and
Fee Schedule."
Plaintiff brings a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1693i, which
provides that no person may issue to a consumer any card, code, or
other means of access to such consumer's account for the purpose of
initiating an electronic fund transfer other than in response to a
request or application therefor, or as a renewal of, or in
substitution for, an accepted card, code, or other means of
access.
Central Bank of Kansas City states it did not violate 15 U.S.C.
Section 1693i because plaintiff only received the prepaid card
after requesting it upon signing the Transaction Receipt.
Plaintiff argues that even though he signed the Transaction
Receipt, the card was provided to him on an unsolicited basis and
was already validated upon receipt. Therefore, Central Bank of
Kansas City violated Section 1693i(b).
The court interprets the terms "request" as intended by Congress
under Electronic Transfer Fund Act as an individual asking and
expressing a desire, by knowing and voluntary choice, to obtain a
card. "Unsolicited" would be a situation where the individual did
not ask or express a desire by knowing and voluntary choice.
In this case, plaintiff asserts he did not ask the bank to provide
him with a card nor did he request an application that he could use
to apply for the card. A reasonable jury could find the prepaid
card was provided to him in an unsolicited manner and that it was
presented to him under circumstances that a reasonable jury could
determine plaintiff understood the application for a card as his
only option of receiving his funds back.
The court noted that in enacting the Electronic Transfer Fund Act,
Congress recognized that "Most consumers are not aware of the risks
they run in using EFT services." Congress enacted the Electronic
Transfer Fund Act "to provide a basic framework establishing the
rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in
electronic fund and remittance transfer systems" with the "primary
objective of the provision of individual consumer rights." This
includes the requirement of "insuring that consumers are not forced
to use EFT."
The Court observed "Given that plaintiff was being discharged from
jail, from a condition of absence of liberty of choice, and was
provided his money back only in the form of the prepaid debit card,
a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff did not believe he had
a meaningful choice in accepting the prepaid card. The court finds
there is a genuine dispute of material fact for a jury to decide
whether the card was requested and solicited or was unrequested and
unsolicited. Therefore, defendant's summary judgment motion is
denied on this claim.
Defendant also moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's Electronic
Transfer Fund Act claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1693l-1, which
prohibits the imposition of "service fees" on general-use prepaid
cards.
The Court notes that the term "general-use prepaid card" does not
include a plastic card that is "reloadable and not marketed or
labeled as a gift card or gift certificate."
Central Bank of Kansas City argues the prepaid debit card
distributed to plaintiff is exempt from the service fee prohibition
because these cards are reloadable and are not marked or labeled as
a gift card or gift certificate. The Cardholder Agreement provides
that "The card is reloadable. Funds can be added to the Card by the
correctional facility providing you with your Card at any time."
The court finds there is no genuine dispute of material fact that
plaintiff's card was reloadable. The court also finds that the
prepaid card was not marked or labeled as a gift card or gift
certificate, as the Cardholder Agreement states: "The card is a
prepaid card. It is not a credit card. The card is not a gift card,
nor is it intended to be used for gifting purposes."
Because there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the card
was reloadable and not marked or labeled as a gift card or gift
certificate, the service fees imposed were permissible under 15
U.S.C. Section 1693l-1. Therefore, the court grants Central Bank of
Kansas City's summary judgment motion under 15 U.S.C. Section
1693l-1.
Washington State Law Claims
The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on
plaintiff's claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act,
unjust enrichment, and conversion under Washington state law. The
parties agree plaintiff's Washington Consumer Protection Act claim
is derivative of plaintiff's claims under Electronic Transfer Fund
Act.
For the Washington Consumer Protection Act claim, the court
concluded that for the same reasons as the Electronic Transfer Fund
Act analysis, a reasonable jury could find the distribution of the
prepaid card to plaintiff was an unfair or deceptive practice, and
that the harm to plaintiff was proximately caused by the
defendant.
Although the court concluded a prepaid card with the
characteristics of the card that plaintiff received may, under the
Electronic Transfer Fund Act, impose service fees, there is a
genuine dispute of material fact about whether the amount of fees
imposed was unfair.
Unjust Enrichment and Conversion Claims
For the unjust enrichment claim A party claiming unjust enrichment
must prove three elements: "(1) the defendant receive[d] a benefit,
(2) the received benefit is at the plaintiff's expense, and (3) the
circumstances made it unjust for the defendant to retain the
benefit without payment. The court found that the first two
elements are met as it is undisputed that Central Bank of Kansas
City received a benefit in the form of fees, which was at
plaintiff's expense since the fees were taken out of his own funds.
The third element turns on whether the fees were reasonable. On the
current record on summary judgment, defendant has not shown the
absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, and a reasonable
jury could determine that the fees were too high.
For the conversion claim, the court found that drawing all
reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of plaintiff, the
non-moving party, a rational jury could find plaintiff did not
agree to have his funds returned to him on a prepaid card with
service fees. Thus, summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff's
conversion claim.
The court ordered as follows: (1) Central Bank of Kansas City's
motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim under 15 U.S.C.
Section 1693i is denied; (2) Central Bank of Kansas City's motion
for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim under 15 U.S.C. Section
1693l-1 is granted; and (3) Central Bank of Kansas City's motion
for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims under Washington state
law are denied.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0H0vyo
CHESTERFIELD DEVELOPMENT: Mellenthin Sues Over Access to Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MELLENTHIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHESTERFIELD DEVELOPMENT, LLC and
PANERA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00980 (E.D. Mo., July 1,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its facility to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of its property. The Plaintiff and
similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural
barriers in common areas such parking, entrance access and path of
travel, and restrooms.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation.
The Chesterfield Development, LLC is a commercial property owner
and operator in Missouri.
Panera, LLC is a commercial property owner and operator in
Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq.
THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, PL
7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A
Boca Raton, FL 33433
Telephone: (561) 807-7388
Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com
CHICAGO HOTEL: Faces Brown Class Suit Over Room Rates' Hidden Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAINCA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE CHICAGO HOTEL COLLECTION, LLC and EXPEDIA GROUP,
INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07810 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2025) seeks
declaratory relief, monetary damages, and restitution from
Defendants arising from the unfair and unconscionable advertisement
of low hotel room rates through third parties which are not honored
upon arrival.
Accordingly, guests are instead assessed "hidden fees" or "junk
fees" that are not disclosed until check-in, and which brings
guests' total payment up to more than 250% of the total online
quoted price.
The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief requiring the Defendants
to advertise up-front to consumers the true total prices of hotel
rooms to disclose any junk fees up front, including third parties
managed by Expedia.
Online hotel booking allows consumers to use their smartphones to
use simple searches to display immediate price comparisons between
dozens of nearby hotels. Google Maps Hotels Search is one such
example, but other common internet search providers that come
preinstalled on devices provide similar products.
The Plaintiff was unaware of Defendants' junk fees at the time she
made her reservation and would not have reserved the room and made
her deposit had she known junk fees would be assessed upon arrival,
the suit says.
The Defendant operates a portfolio of boutique hotels across
Chicago of roughly 600–700 rooms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
tbell@masonllp.com
CLEARSTAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Claims in Runyon Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Orelia E. Merchant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York grants in part and denies in part ClearStar
Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned
as CAROLYN KAY RUNYON, Plaintiff v. CLEARSTAR, INC., APPRISS
INSIGHTS, LLC, DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 24-CV-01519 (OEM)
(LGD) (E.D.N.Y.).
The court denied ClearStar's motion with respect to most claims but
granted it regarding one Fair Credit Reporting Act violation.
Plaintiff Carolyn Kay Runyon brought this putative class action
against defendants ClearStar Inc., Appriss Insights LLC, and Does
1-10 alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. Plaintiff is a natural person and
resident of Raymond, Ohio.
ClearStar is an employment background screening agency which
prepares background check reports by assembling and evaluating
information for, among other entities, prospective employers.
Appriss is a company that provides information for use under the
FCRA including background check and criminal record search
results.
On or about April 15, 2022, ClearStar provided a consumer report
consisting of background check results regarding Plaintiff to her
prospective employer, LiceDoctors LLC. In preparing the Report,
ClearStar obtained information from Appriss, a private third-party
vendor. The Report indicated that Plaintiff had a criminal or sex
offender record. However, the Report did not disclose its source or
any details regarding the content of those records on Plaintiff -
specifically, it did not state any case number, date of charges
filed, name of the charges, severity of the offense, disposition,
or date of disposition.
The Report merely showed a "red flag" associated with the following
search: "National Criminal Database Check - AN (All Names) -
Includes Sex Offender Registry and SSN Trace."
Plaintiff alleges that it is unclear whether Appriss or ClearStar
found a criminal record, sex offender record, or both, and the
implication of either "would be detrimental" to Plaintiff.
Additionally, the Report stated that Plaintiff's Social Security
Number was issued prior to her date of birth: Plaintiff was born in
1977 and her SSN was issued in that year, but the Report stated
that her SSN was issued in 1973. Plaintiff reached out to ClearStar
to dispute the social security issue and offered to provide
additional information if necessary. ClearStar responded stating it
was unable to correct the year associated with her SSN because that
information was provided by the Social Security Administration.
Plaintiff contacted the SSA, which informed her that Plaintiff's
correct birth date was associated with her SSN. Despite this
information, Plaintiff alleges that ClearStar failed to amend the
errors on the Report or delete the information that could not be
verified within 30 days. As of the date of the Amended Complaint,
ClearStar never updated the Report.
The court addressed whether the Report qualifies as a "consumer
report" under the FCRA, which is a threshold question of law. The
FCRA defines "consumer report" as any written, oral, or other
communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency
bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit
capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics,
or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected
in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in
establishing the consumer's eligibility for employment purposes.
ClearStar argued that the social security information contained
within the Report does not meet the second element because the
information was merely "biographical" and thus does not bear on the
consumer's credit worthiness, character, general reputation,
personal characteristics, or mode of living. Therefore, ClearStar
argued, Plaintiff does not state a claim for violations of either
Section 1681e(b) or 1681k(a) with respect to ClearStar's report of
her SSN information.
The court found that the SSN disclaimer and red flag icon in the
Report bear on Plaintiff's character, thus rendering the Report a
"consumer report" within the meaning of the FCRA. The court noted
that the Report included an "SSN Validation and Death Master Index
Search Check" which had a disclaimer: "The provided SSN is reported
as having been issued prior to the applicant's year of birth." The
court determined that the disclaimer and red flag connote that
Plaintiff's SSN does not actually belong to her and suggest that
she has done something improper that impugns her moral character,
which clearly bears on Plaintiff's character, reputation, and mode
of living. Accordingly, the court denied ClearStar's effort to
dismiss Plaintiff's first, second and fifth causes of action
against it, on the ground that the Report does not qualify as a
"consumer report.
Reseller Status and Reinvestigation Duties
Regarding ClearStar's claim that it is not subject to the
reinvestigation requirements of Section 1681i(a)(5) because it is a
"reseller," the court found that ClearStar has made no assertions
and submits no evidence beyond the conclusory and flawed reasoning
in its memorandum of law that it does not maintain a database of
Plaintiff's information from which new reports may be produced.
Furthermore, ClearStar's exhibit showing email correspondence
between it and Plaintiff contradicts its assertion that it is not
subject to the reinvestigation requirement. In those emails,
ClearStar repeatedly emailed Plaintiff requesting information so
that it "may continue reinvestigation."
Accuracy and Public Records Claims
The court analyzed Plaintiff's claims that ClearStar violated the
FCRA's reporting accuracy requirements in violation of Section
1681e(b) by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the
information regarding Plaintiff's criminal history was accurate.
The court also examined allegations that ClearStar failed to use
strict procedures to ensure complete and up to date information
when reporting Plaintiff's criminal history in violation of Section
1681k(a).
Court's Final Rulings
The court found that where the Report is silent as to any criminal
history, or the absence thereof, a reader may reasonably interpret
the report to mean that Plaintiff had a criminal or sex offender
record. However, because the Report did not report a criminal
history or sex offense record that was inaccurate or incomplete,
and indeed no such record is alleged to exist, Plaintiff has failed
to plausibly allege that ClearStar reported incomplete or out of
date matters of public record in violation of Section 1681k.
Accordingly, ClearStar's motion for judgment on the pleadings, with
respect to Plaintiff's first cause of action for violation of
Section 1681e(b), is denied. ClearStar's motion is granted with
respect to Plaintiff's second cause of action for violation of
Section 1681k(a).
ClearStar's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's
third cause of action for violations of Section 1681i(a)(5) of the
FCRA is denied.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VrOv8G
COLEWILLAIDAN LLC: Berard Sues Over Mislabeled Salmon Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK BERARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLEWILLAIDAN, LLC, d/b/a COLE'S SEAFOOD,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06462 (C.D. Cal., July 15, 2025) is a
class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated who purchased the Defendant's canned farmed salmon
Products.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, that because the Product
contains a color additive, the Defendant was required to disclose
it on the label. As such, he sustained injuries by purchasing the
Defendant's Products which were deceptively marketed as containing
salmon with a healthy, natural pink coloring when the Defendant's
Products were artificially colored, says the Plaintiff.
Colewillaidan, LLC, d/b/a Cole's Seafood is in the business of
seafood product preparation and packaging. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
Joshua B. Glatt, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
jglatt@bursor.com
rmartin@bursor.com
COMMUNITY CARE: W.D. New York Okays Notice to Beh Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York issued a Decision and Order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of notice to class members in
the lawsuit titled ORETHA BEH, RUBY CASON, BRIANA KINCANNON, and
KIMBERLY BALKUM, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMUNITY CARE COMPANIONS INC.,
ALEXANDER J. CARO, MARK GATIEN, INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF ROCHESTER,
INC., and JAMES WATSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01417-JLS-MJR
(W.D.N.Y.).
The Plaintiffs bring this class and collective action alleging
claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") arising out of their employment as
home-care workers beginning in early 2013. The case has been
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for
all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Sections 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and
(C).
The Second Amended Complaint, filed on Feb. 3, 2021, is the
operative Complaint.
Before the Court are objections to Judge Roemer's Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") addressing various motions. In particular,
on June 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for Court approval of a
Notice of Class Certification to be distributed to the approved
Rule 23 class members. The Defendants opposed the motion, and the
Plaintiffs replied.
Then, on Aug. 7, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to maintain
an FLSA collective action. On the same date, the Defendants filed a
counter motion to decertify the conditionally certified FLSA
collective action. The Defendants also opposed the Plaintiffs'
motion, and the Plaintiffs opposed the Defendants' counter motion.
Both sides replied.
In addition, the Plaintiffs moved to strike declarations filed by
the Defendants in support of their motion to decertify the FLSA
collective action. The Defendants opposed the motions to strike,
and the Plaintiffs replied. The Defendants also moved to strike
declarations by the Plaintiffs in support of their motion to
maintain the FLSA collective action and in opposition to the
counter motion to decertify the collective action. The Plaintiffs
opposed the motions to strike, and the Defendants replied.
On Oct. 2, 2024, the Defendants moved to decertify the Rule 23
class. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion. The Defendants replied.
Also on Oct. 2, 2024, the Defendants moved for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the Defendants replied.
Lastly, the Plaintiffs moved to strike declarations filed by the
Defendants in support of their motion to decertify the Rule 23
class and motion for summary judgment. The Defendants opposed the
motion to strike, and the Plaintiffs replied. The parties also
submitted supplemental briefing on their various motions.
On March 25, 2025, Judge Roemer issued an R&R addressing these
motions. He recommends that the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of
notice to class members be granted; that the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to maintain an FLSA collective action be granted; that the
Defendants' countermotion to decertify the collective action be
denied; that the Defendants' motion to decertify the Rule 28 class
action be denied; that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
be denied; and that the Plaintiffs' and the Defendants' motions to
strike be denied.
On April 22, 2025, Defendants Community Care Companions, Inc., Mark
Gatien, and Alexander Caro (collectively, the "CCC Defendants")
objected to the R&R. They argue that the "aspect of the Magistrate
Judge's R&R finding no compelling reason to reexamine class
certification of the single certified issue, and denying
Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Rule 23 Class, without further
analysis is clearly erroneous and contrary to the law, particularly
where the [R&R] itself recognizes individual issues not appropriate
for continued certification." They further argue that "the Court
has an affirmative obligation to ensure the requirements of Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met, regardless of
whether a compelling reason (i.e., a significant intervening event)
is shown or not."
In addition, the CCC Defendants argue that "notice should not be
distributed to any class member without the Court first evaluating
whether a class should continue to be certified" and that the
"Defendants should also be given an opportunity to confer and agree
on the contents of any notice, prior to Court approval." The
Plaintiffs opposed the objections, and the CCC Defendants replied.
The Plaintiffs then filed a sur-reply.
The Court has reviewed the R&R, the objections, and the relevant
record. Based on that review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge
Roemer's recommendations.
For the reasons set forth in the Decision and Order and in the R&R,
the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of notice to
class members. In addition, the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
maintain an FLSA collective action is granted, and the Defendants'
counter motion to decertify the collective action is denied.
Further, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to decertify the
Rule 23 class action, and the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. Lastly, the parties' various motions to strike are denied
without prejudice. The case is referred back to Judge Roemer
consistent with the referral order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4zfwtknb from PacerMonitor.com.
COMPASS GROUP: Aug. 18 Hearing on Bosco Bid to Revive Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled FERDANINDO BOSCO AND CLAUDETTE
JACKSON-GOODMAN, Plaintiffs v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC.; COMPASS
ONE, LLC; and COMPASS 2K12 SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-06909-JXN-JRA (D.N.J.), are asking Judge Julien Xavier
Neals of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to
reconsider his prior court order dismissing with prejudice the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.
In a June 23 decision, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, directing the Clerk of the Court to close the matter.
The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration. Magistrate
Judge Jose R. Almonte set a return date for the Plaintiffs'
Reconsideration Motion to August 18, 2025. The hearing was
originally set for August 4 but later extended by the Magistrate
Judge. The hearing on the Reconsideration Motion will before Judge
Neals.
Compass Group USA, Inc., Compass One, LLC, and Compass 2K12
Services, LLC sought dismissal of Ferdanindo Bosco and Claudette
Jackson-Goodman's Amended Complaint for lack of standing and
failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The Plaintiffs, former employees of Compass, bring this class
action on behalf of all employees "who were not paid properly for
the hours they worked" pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. Section
34:11-4.2 of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"). While the
Amended Complaint does not set forth the dates the Plaintiffs
worked for Compass, the Defendants have set forth affidavit
evidence and deposition testimony establishing that Bosco's
employment ended on June 21, 2017, and Jackson-Goodman's employment
ended on June 23, 2017.
According to the Amended Complaint, Compass provides food services
and support to various locations over New Jersey and North America,
including offices, factories, schools, universities, hospitals, and
correctional facilities. Since at least 2009, Compass has failed to
properly pay their hourly-wage employees as promised by engaging in
a common and uniform course of conduct.
Compass operates WebPayroll, a self-created payroll system that can
short employees' time. At every Compass location, each employee's
hours worked would be collected and totaled up on a weekly or
bi-weekly basis, which would then be entered into WebPayroll.
However, WebPayroll only accepts the numbers of hours worked and
does not accept minutes, but instead accepts time in hundredths of
an hour.
The Plaintiffs allege Compass employed a rounding tactic to round
time to the nearest quarter of an hour, did not provide training on
the need to enter time in hundredths of an hour, nor did it provide
a conversion chart so that those inputting time into WebPayroll
could do it correctly, and did not educate its employees on the
need to enter time in hundredths of an hour. Compass has never
performed any audit or other investigation to confirm that its
hourly-wage employees were and are being properly paid.
On Sept. 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint. Thereafter,
the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on Oct. 11, 2022. In the
Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs raise four causes of action: (1)
negligence (Count I); (2) fraud (Count II); (3) unjust enrichment
(Count III); and (4) violation of the NJWPL (Count IV).
On Nov. 30, 2022, the Defendants removed the matter to this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1446. On Sept. 27, 2024,
the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The Plaintiffs opposed the motion, to which the Defendants replied.
Upon receiving permission from the Court, the Plaintiffs filed a
sur-reply.
The Defendants raise three primary arguments in support of their
motion. First, the Defendants argue the Court should dismiss the
NJWPL claims because the claims are time-barred because they are
governed by the two-year statute of limitations. Second, the
Defendants argue even if the claims were not time-barred, the Court
should dismiss the Amended Complaint because neither Plaintiff can
act as a viable class representative. Finally, the Defendants argue
the fraud claim must be dismissed because the Plaintiffs' fail to
satisfy the heightened pleading standard. The Plaintiffs challenge
each of these assertions.
As the Court finds each of the claims are time-barred, the Court
will dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice and need not
address the Defendants' other arguments.
Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court finds the
Plaintiffs' NJWPL claims must be dismissed. Judge Neals notes that
the Plaintiffs seemingly concede that the NJWPL is governed by a
two-year statute of limitations. The Court finds the Defendants
have demonstrated that the claims are time-barred.
Since all claims raised in the Amended Complaint are subject to the
two-year statute of limitations, the Court finds the Plaintiffs'
claims are all time-barred. Notwithstanding, even if the Court were
to apply the six-year statute of limitations, the Maia Court
expressly found that the limitations period would apply
prospectively, not retroactively, Judge Neals opines, citing Maia
v. IEW Constr. Grp., 313 A.3d 887, 895 (N.J. 2024) (quoting
Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, 220 N.J. 289, 302 (2015)).
Therefore, Judge Neals points out the Plaintiffs' claims would
still be time-barred under the six-year statute of limitations.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Amended Complaint with
prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3yspzsc8 from PacerMonitor.com.
COMPASS MINERALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Waite Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY WAITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-02372 (D. Kan., July 10, 2025) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Waite was employed by the Defendant as a powder man in
connection with the Defendant's mining operation.
Compass Minerals America Inc. provides essential minerals. The
Company produces salt, plant nutrients, and magnesium chloride, as
well as offers a secure records storage in a retired mine. Compass
Minerals International serves a variety of applications in
industrial, agricultural, commercial and consumer markets
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
Samantha Angell, Esq.
OSMAN &SMAY LLC
7111 W. 151st St., #316
Overland Park, KS 66223
Telephone: (913) 667-9243
Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
Email: mosman@workerwagerights.com
sangell@workerwagerights.com
- and -
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, Texas 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
COMPUMEDICS USA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hill Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMPUMEDICS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00479 (W.D.N.C., July 2, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former patients
of Defendant's clients sensitive information, including personally
identifiable information and protected health information (together
with PHI, "Private Information").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private
Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect the
sensitive data of its clients' patients. Hackers targeted and
obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because
of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff
and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of
the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons whose Private Information was compromised and stolen as a
result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's
inadequate data security practices.
Compumedics USA, LLC manufacture medical devices. The Company
offers surgical and diagnostic equipment, apparatus, and ultrasonic
blood-flow monitoring applications. Compumedics operates worldwide.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC
P.O. Box 54
Asheville, NC 28804
Telephone: (828) 316-6902
Email: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-3200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
COMPUMEDICS USA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Elsewhere Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB ELSEWHERE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMPUMEDICS USA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00500-FDW-SCR
(W.D.N.C., July 10, 2025) arises out of the recent data security
incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant,
which held in its possession certain personally identifiable
information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other
current and former patients of Defendant's clients, the putative
class members.
The Data Breach occurred between February 15, 2025, and March 23,
2025.
The Private Information compromised in Defendant Compumedics USA,
Inc.'s Data Breach included certain personal or protected health
information of individuals, including Plaintiff. This Private
Information included but is not limited to "your name, date of
birth, demographic information, medical record number, health
insurance information, treatment and diagnosis information, date(s)
of treatment, provider name(s), and/or sleep study results."
The Private Information was "accessed, reviewed, or copied" by
cyber-criminals who perpetrated the attack and remains in the hands
of those cyber-criminals.
The Data Breach resulted from Defendant’s failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect individuals’ Private Information with which
they were entrusted for either treatment.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was
subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and
precisely what type of information was accessed.
The Plaintiff was a patient of Defendant's client, McLaren Health
Care. Plaintiff provided Defendant with his sensitive Private
Information as a condition of receiving treatment with
Defendant’s client, McLaren Health Care.
Compumedics is a medical device company involved in the
development, manufacture, and commercialisation of diagnostics
technology for sleep, brain, and ultrasonic blood-flow monitoring
applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah A. Knox, Esq.
HUNTER & EVERAGE, PLLC
Post Office Box 25555
Charlotte, NC 28229
Telephone: (704) 377-9157
Facsimile: (704) 377-9160
E-mail: sak@hunter-everage.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
E-mail: Telephone: (888) 350-3931
lmontgomery@eksm.com
service@eksm.com
COWIN & COMPANY: Orr Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER A. ORR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COWIN & COMPANY, INC., MINING ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS, Case No. 2:25-cv-01115-AMM (N.D. Ala., July 10, 2025)
seeks damages for the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff time
and one half-the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
in each seven-day workweek under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Specifically, the Defendant requires Orr and other hourly paid
mining employees to suit into protective clothing and safety gear
(personal protective equipment, 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, Defendant requires Orr and other hourly paid mining
employees to remove and store PPE and wash up, also known as
"doffing," without compensation, or while "clocked out," asserts
the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a "top-house" miner in
connection with mining and construction business operations. The
Plaintiff began working for Defendant on or about January 2021 and
ended his employment with Defendant on November 2023.
Cowin operates mining construction.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Holmes, Ave. NE Suite 100
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 532-2222
Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
- and -
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
CRACKER BARREL: Appeals Court Rejects Certification of FLSA Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan H. Crosner, Harry M. Rowland, III, and Zachary V. Zagger of
Ogletree Deadkins report that on July 1, 2025, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court's
preliminary certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action, holding that district courts in the Ninth
Circuit must assess whether each prospective opt-in plaintiff can
satisfy personal jurisdiction requirements before being allowed to
join an FLSA collective action. The decision has significant
implications for FLSA collective action litigation against
employers.
The Ninth Circuit held that when the basis for personal
jurisdiction in a collective action is specific personal
jurisdiction, a district court must assess personal jurisdiction on
a claim-by-claim basis as to each opt-in plaintiff, potentially
limiting the scope of collective actions filed against defendants
in courts outside of their home states.
In doing so, the Ninth Circuit joined the Third, Sixth, Seventh,
and Eighth Circuits and rejected the First Circuit's approach,
which requires only that a court have specific personal
jurisdiction over the named plaintiff's claim.
The court upheld the district court's decision to notify
prospective opt-in plaintiffs who are potentially subject to
arbitration agreements before determining the arbitrability of the
claims.
In Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., a Ninth
Circuit panel vacated a district court's preliminary certification
of a nationwide FLSA collective action filed against a
Tennessee-based restaurant chain. It ruled that the district court
erred by finding that a single plaintiff with claims against
Cracker Barrel based on its business in Arizona was sufficient to
establish personal jurisdiction over the restaurant chain for all
claims in the collective action when the restaurant chain was not
otherwise subject to general personal jurisdiction in Arizona.
The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case to the district court to
reassess preliminary certification in light of its holding that
specific personal jurisdiction must be assessed on a claim-by-claim
basis before authorizing the sending of court-approved written
notice to prospective opt-in plaintiffs.
The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court was not
required to determine the arbitrability of prospective opt-in
plaintiffs before authorizing notice, since there were issues of
fact regarding the arbitration agreements that needed to be
resolved.
Background
A group of current and former Cracker Barrel employees who were not
subject to arbitration agreements filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, alleging the company had
violated the FLSA in how it applied tip credits to the wages of
tipped workers. The plaintiffs sought to preliminarily certify a
collective action and send notice to prospective opt-in plaintiffs
across the United States.
Cracker Barrel argued that the notice should not be sent to
employees subject to its arbitration agreements or to employees
outside of Arizona—where Cracker Barrel was not subject to
general personal jurisdiction—to the extent that the court did
not have specific personal jurisdiction over their claims.
The district court authorized nationwide notice and reserved
judgment on the issue of the arbitration agreements' applicability
until later in the proceedings. It further concluded that
nationwide notice of the collective action was permissible, finding
that because specific personal jurisdiction existed for the
Arizona-based named plaintiff's claims, Cracker Barrel was subject
to personal jurisdiction in Arizona for all claims brought by
similarly situated plaintiffs in the collective action—including
claims brought by nonresident opt-in plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit
granted an immediate appeal.
Personal Jurisdiction and Nationwide Notice in a Collective Action
The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court's handling of
the issue of personal jurisdiction. Its ruling turned on the
Supreme Court of the United States' 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, in which the Court held
that a state court lacked personal jurisdiction in a mass tort case
involving hundreds of out-of-state residents.
While acknowledging the circuit split about whether that decision
applied in the context of an FLSA collective action, the Ninth
Circuit joined the Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits in
holding that it did. The First Circuit's approach requires only
that a court have specific personal jurisdiction over the named
plaintiff's claim.
Relying on Bristol-Myers, the Ninth Circuit stated that mass
actions and FLSA collective actions are “analogous,” and that,
“in a case made up of individual claims by individual parties, it
logically follows that personal jurisdiction be analyzed on an
individual basis rather than at the level of the suit.”
“Consequently, where the basis for personal jurisdiction in the
collective action is specific personal jurisdiction, the district
court must assess whether each opt-in plaintiff's claim bears a
sufficient connection to the defendant's activities in the forum
state,” the Ninth Circuit found.
“Because the district court authorized nationwide notice on the
mistaken assumption that it would not need to assess specific
personal jurisdiction on a claim-by-claim basis, we vacate and
remand [the case] for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion,” the court stated.
Notice to Employees Potentially Subject to Arbitration Agreements
The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's decision to allow the
sending of notice to prospective opt-in plaintiffs who might be
subject to arbitration agreements. While the Ninth Circuit agreed
that it would be an abuse of discretion to authorize notice to
employees whose claims were indisputably subject to arbitration, it
expressly declined to “adopt any bright-line rule requiring
district courts in all cases to make conclusive determinations
regarding the arbitrability of prospective opt-in plaintiffs'
claims prior to the dissemination of notice.”
The appellate court thus held that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in allowing notice to be sent to employees whose
claims were potentially subject to arbitration, since the district
court had found “multiple issues of fact” that needed to be
resolved to “determine which prospective opt-in plaintiffs might
be required to arbitrate their claims.”
Key Takeaways
Cracker Barrel clarifies critical issues in the certification
process for collective actions and the application of personal
jurisdiction principles. In particular, the Ninth Circuit extended
the Supreme Court's Bristol-Myers holding to FLSA collective
actions, requiring courts to assess personal jurisdiction on a
claim-by-claim basis, and widened the circuit split on the issue.
This decision may significantly limit the scope of collective
actions when defendants are haled into courts where they are not
subject to general personal jurisdiction. [GN]
CURRENT HOME: Trippett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CURRENT HOME LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-05756 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.currenthomeny.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Current Home LLC installs sustainable residential solar systems and
provides full-service roofing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Gevyfirm@gmail.com
DESIGNER BRANDS: Rosen Law Probes Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Hayes, writing for AInvest, reports that the retail
sector's volatility is no secret, but few companies have faced as
sharp a reversal as Designer Brands Inc. (NYSE: DBI), which saw its
stock plummet 18% in a single day after announcing a withdrawal of
2025 financial guidance. Now, a securities class action
investigation led by the Rosen Law Firm has added legal uncertainty
to an already precarious situation. For investors, the question
isn't just whether to hold or sell -- it's whether to fight for
compensation amid allegations of misleading disclosures. This
article dissects the risks, potential payouts, and broader lessons
for retail investors in a sector where consumer sentiment swings
like a pendulum.
The Trigger: A Quarter of Missed Expectations
Designer Brands' troubles began on June 10, 2025, when it reported
a dismal first quarter. Net sales fell 8% to $686.9 million, with
comparable sales dropping 7.8% across all segments. The company
cited an "unpredictable macro environment" and "deteriorating
consumer sentiment" as reasons for withdrawing its 2025 guidance --
a move that sent its stock spiraling.
CEO Doug Howe's comments during the earnings call painted a grim
picture: "Consumer sentiment reached its lowest point on record in
May," he stated, while emphasizing a pivot to cost-cutting and
margin preservation. Yet investors saw red. The stock closed at
$3.05 on June 10 -- a 18.23% drop -- and fell further in premarket
trading, hitting $2.84, a 23.86% decline. By July, shares were near
their 52-week low of $2.44, reflecting skepticism about the
company's ability to rebound.
The Legal Crosshairs: Rosen Law Firm's Case and Its Track Record
On July 12, 2025, Rosen Law Firm announced an investigation into
potential securities fraud, alleging Designer Brands made
"materially misleading" statements about its financial health. The
firm's focus is on whether the company knew its guidance was
untenable before withdrawing it -- a claim that could open the door
to shareholder recovery.
Why does Rosen's involvement matter? The firm's record speaks for
itself:
-- Ranked #1 by Institutional Shareholder Services for securities
class actions in 2017.
-- Recovered over $438 million for investors in 2019 alone.
-- Operates on a contingency fee basis: no upfront costs, with
fees paid only if compensation is secured.
This structure minimizes risk for shareholders, who can join the
class action without financial exposure. Rosen's history of
high-profile recoveries -- including the largest-ever settlement
against a Chinese company -- adds credibility to its pursuit of
DBI
The Contingency Calculation: Is This a Win for Shareholders?
For investors holding DBI shares post-June 10, joining the class
action makes strategic sense. The Rosen Law Firm's contingency
model ensures there's little downside, while the upside hinges on
the case's success. Even a partial recovery could offset losses,
especially if the stock remains stagnant.
However, investors must act swiftly. While the securities case's
deadline isn't specified, other related actions -- like a separate
TCPA settlement over text message violations -- have strict
timelines (e.g., a June 30, 2025, claims deadline). Shareholders
are advised to contact Rosen directly or visit their case-specific
portal to secure eligibility.
Broader Implications: Trust and Transparency in Retail
Designer Brands' situation underscores a broader challenge in the
consumer discretionary sector: the fine line between caution and
deception. Companies like DBI, which rely on investor confidence to
navigate economic downturns, face heightened scrutiny when guidance
is withdrawn abruptly.
This case also highlights the growing role of contingency fee law
firms in empowering small investors. In sectors prone to volatility
-- retail, tech, or energy -- such lawsuits can level the playing
field, ensuring that even minor shareholders have a voice.
Investment Takeaways: What to Do Next
1. Hold or Sell?
DBI's stock is near historic lows, but its dividend -- $0.05
per share, yielding 5.36% -- offers some income appeal. However,
the legal cloud and weak fundamentals (e.g., a $17.4M net loss)
suggest caution. For long-term holders, consider hedging with puts
or scaling back exposure.
Join the Class Action
With no upfront cost and a reputable firm leading the case,
participation is a no-brainer for eligible shareholders. Visit
Rosen's DBI case page to register.
Watch the Retail Sector
DBI's struggles mirror broader retail headwinds: tariffs, supply
chain bottlenecks, and shifting consumer preferences. Monitor peers
like DSW (DSW) or Steve Madden (SHOO) for similar risks -- and
opportunities.
Final Analysis
Designer Brands' saga is a cautionary tale for investors in
cyclical sectors. While the stock's valuation is now deeply
discounted, legal risks and uncertain recovery prospects leave
little room for optimism. For now, the class action offers the best
path to reclaim value -- if the case succeeds. In a sector where
transparency is key, DBI's story serves as a reminder: always
question the narrative behind the numbers. [GN]
DOLCE & GABBANA: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Non-Fungible Token
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Coghlan, writing for CoinTelegraph, reports that the US arm
of Dolce & Gabbana has escaped a proposed class-action lawsuit over
its parent company's alleged abandonment of a non-fungible token
(NFT) project.
In an order on Friday, July 11, New York federal court judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald sided with Dolce & Gabbana USA Inc., dismissing the
lawsuit because it wasn't an "alter ego" of its Italy-based parent,
Dolce & Gabbana SRL.
A group of NFT buyers claimed in a lawsuit filed in May 2024 and
updated in September that Dolce & Gabbana and its US arm "are
effectively the same company" that failed to deliver on its
"DGFamily" NFT project launched in 2022 and kept over $25 million
from it.
The future of the suit is in doubt as Dolce & Gabbana USA was the
sole US-based defendant. The Dubai-based NFT marketplace UNXD Inc.
and the Italy-based Bluebear Italia SRL -- the creator of an NFT
collection called "inBetweeners" -- were also named as defendants,
which the court noted were not served with the complaint.
Lawsuit claimed Dolce & Gabbana abandoned NFT project
The complaint alleged that Dolce & Gabbana and UNXD together made
and promoted DGFamily, which would give buyers "high value"
benefits to be delivered over two years at a rate of once per
quarter.
Some of the allegedly promised perks were digital outfits for the
Decentraland metaverse, physical clothing and live events for NFT
holders.
However, the lawsuit claimed Dolce & Gabbana "failed to provide the
complete set of benefits they promised" and kept millions of
dollars from selling the NFTs.
US arm argued it wasn't involved in NFTs
Dolce & Gabbana USA filed to dismiss the suit in January, arguing
that it was a separate entity that couldn't be tied to the actions
of its Italian parent company.
"D&G USA has not entered into any joint venture with UNXD, or any
other entity, to sell, advertise, or promote any NFTs," it argued.
The firm argued that the complaint's evidence had established that
the NFT project originated from its parent company in Italy and
that it had not sufficiently alleged ties between the US and
Italian firms.
Judge Buchwald said the lawsuit was "plainly insufficient to
withstand D&G USA's motion to dismiss" as it referred to both the
US and Italian company "as ‘Dolce & Gabbana' and attributes all
misconduct to this shared moniker, without differentiating what
each entity did."
The amended lawsuit detailed an "overlap in ownership, officers,
directors, and personnel" between the two firms, such as sharing a
CEO, operating chief and IT and marketing executives, she noted.
However, the suit failed to "provide specific examples" of how
those executives were involved in the NFT project.
"The Court finds that plaintiff has not adequately alleged that D&G
S.R.L. completely dominated D&G USA even if D&G S.R.L. allegedly
shared some employees and office space with D&G USA," Buchwald
said. [GN]
DRINK LMNT: Thomas Sues Over Mislabeled Drink Mix Products
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DRINK LMNT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61401
(S.D. Fla., July 11, 2025) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and similarly situated purchasers of
the Defendant's flavored electrolyte drink mix products seeking
damages and other relief arising from the deceptive, unfair, and
misleading conduct of Defendant in connection with the advertising,
marketing, and sales of its products.
According the complaint, the Defendant developed, marketed, and
sold its drink mix products with ads and labels that targeted
"health seeking consumers" and described its products with
statements such as "No Artificial Ingredients," "All Natural
Ingredients," "No Dodgy Ingredients," and "Paleo-Keto Friendly" so
that reasonable consumers would believe that LMNT contained no
unlisted ingredients and certainly no artificial fillers.
However, these statements were false and misleading because the
Defendant's products actually contain maltodextrin, a highly
processed and synthetic ingredient, which is not listed on the
product label or packaging.
Drink LMNT, Inc. is a company that manufactures and sells an
electrolyte drink mix called LMNT. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cristina M. Pierson, Esq.
KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
500 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Email: cmp@kulaw.com
E.I. DUPONT: Agrees to Settle Contamination Class Suit for $27MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that chemical maker DuPont has agreed to a $27
million settlement to resolve a nearly decade-long lawsuit over the
contamination of an upstate New York village's water supply.
The deal was announced by lawyers representing residents of Hoosick
Falls, located northwest of Albany, just as the case was headed to
trial in federal court this week.
The settlement brings the total recovered in the class action suit
brought in 2016 to more than $90 million, lawyers for
Rochester-based firm Faraci Lange said.
Three other companies -- Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics,
Honeywell International and 3M --settled for a total of more than
$65 million in 2021. DuPont was the last remaining defendant.
"We are gratified to have reached what we believe will be the final
resolution of this case that will provide significant added benefit
to the residents of Hoosick Falls and the Town of Hoosick," said
Stephen Schwarz.
A spokesperson for Delaware-based DuPont didn't immediately respond
to an email seeking comment.
The DuPont settlement, which must still be approved by a federal
judge, also includes another $6 million in funding for an existing
medical monitoring program for exposed residents, according to
attorneys.
In their class action suit, Hoosick Falls residents claimed that a
local Teflon fabric coating facility operated by Saint-Gobain and
Honeywell caused local drinking water to become contaminated with
perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA.
DuPont, which made Teflon materials used at the facility, and 3M,
which made the PFOA used by DuPont in its products, were added as
defendants to the lawsuit in 2018.
PFOA was once widely used in certain industrial processes but is
now considered a harmful "forever chemical" because it can persist
in the environment for decades without decomposing.
It has been linked to a number of serious illnesses including
kidney and testicular cancer and has recently been classified as a
carcinogen. [GN]
EXOTIC SNACK: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Exotic Snack Guys, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07820 (N.D. Ill., July
10, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, Exoticsnackguys.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their
non-disabled customers through Exoticsnackguys.com.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
leather sandals on Pikolinos.com. Despite his efforts, however, the
Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted
individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, says the suit.
Exoticsnackguys.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by
Exotic Snack Guys. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison Chan, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: achan@ealg.law
FASHION NOVA: Settles Blind-Inaccessible Website Suit for $5.15MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Aljets, writing for ClaimDepot, reports that individuals who
are legally blind and attempted to access the Fashion Nova using
screen reading software between Feb. 26, 2018, and now may be
eligible to submit a claim for up to $4,000 from a class action
settlement.
Fashion Nova LLC agreed to pay $5.15 million to settle a class
action lawsuit for allegedly failing to make its website accessible
to legally blind individuals who use screen reading software. The
settlement also requires Fashion Nova to improve website
accessibility for users with visual impairments.
Who is eligible for a Fashion Nova settlement benefit?
There are two classes included in the settlement:
-- Nationwide class: All legally blind individuals who attempted
to access Fashion Nova's website using screen reading software
during the applicable limitations period up to and including the
date of final judgment in this action.
-- California class: All legally blind individuals residing in
California who attempted to access Fashion Nova's website using
screen reading software during the same period.
What are the class action settlement benefits?
-- California class members who submit a valid will receive a pro
rata cash payment of up to $4,000 per household. Final payment
amount will be determined by the number of claims filed.
-- Nationwide class members: All other class members outside of
California cannot submit for a settlement payment but will benefit
from website accessibility improvements.
How can California class members claim a payment?
Eligible California class members must submit a claim form to
receive a payment. The deadline to submit a claim is Oct. 20, 2025.
You can file a claim online or download a PDF claim form to mail
in.
Settlement administrator's mailing address: Alcazar v. Fashion
Nova, Inc., c/o CPT Group, Inc., 50 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA
92606
Is proof required to submit a claim?
No, supporting documentation is not required to submit a claim.
California must provide the approximate dates of their Fashion Nova
website visits and attest under penalty of perjury that they are
legally blind and that the information provided is true and
correct.
Payout options
-- Check mailed to address provided
-- PayPal
-- Venmo
-- Direct deposit
-- Zelle
-- Virtual VISA card
$5.15 million Fashion Nova settlement fund
The $5,150,000 settlement fund of $5.15 million will include:
-- Settlement administration costs: $158,000
-- Attorneys' fees: Up to $1,287,500
-- Attorneys' litigation expenses: Up to $1,235,259.03
-- Settlement administration costs: Up to $158,000
-- Service award to class representative: Up to $1,000
-- Payments to approved California claimants: Remaining
settlement funds for payments of up to $4,000 each
-- Charitable donation: Any leftover funds after all valid
California claims are paid at the maximum of $4,000 each will be
donated to the American Foundation for the Blind
Important dates
-- Deadline to submit a claim form: Oct. 20, 2025
-- Deadline to opt out: Oct. 20, 2025
-- Final fairness approval hearing: Feb. 12, 2026
When is the Fashion Nova accessibility settlement payout date?
Payments will be issued to approved California class member
claimants approximately 65 days after the court grants final
approval of the settlement.
Why is there a class action lawsuit settlement?
This class action lawsuit was filed because the plaintiff alleged
that Fashion Nova's website was not accessible to legally blind
individuals using screen reading software, which denied them equal
access to information and services. Fashion Nova denies all
allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of a
possible trial.
In addition to monetary compensation to California class members,
the settlement requires Fashion Nova to improve website
accessibility. [GN]
FAST EASY: Coffey Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
VICKI COFFEY is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her
lawsuit entitled Vicki Coffey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02725-SPL, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act for restrictions of use of telephone equipment.
On Mar. 7, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which Judge Steven P. Logan granted on
June 5, 2025. The case is dismissed with prejudice.
The Court concludes that the messages sent to the Plaintiff cannot,
as a matter of law, be considered "solicitations" under the TCPA,
and the Plaintiff's complaint could not be cured by the allegation
of additional facts.
The appellate case is entitled Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC, et
al., Case No. 25-4066, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 30, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 7, 2025;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 11, 2025; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 8, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant VICKI COFFEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq.
PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC
7500 Rialto Boulevard, Suite 1-250
Austin, TX 78735
Defendants-Appellees FAST EASY OFFER, LLC, et al. are represented
by:
Colin Matthew Proksel, Esq.
OSBORN MALEDON, PA
2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, AZ 85012
- and -
Anthony T. King, Esq.
Megan Maria Carrasco, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER, LLP
1 E. Washington Street, Suite 2700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
- and -
James M. Cool, Esq.
HONOR LAW GROUP, PLLC
1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150
Phoenix, AZ 85004
- and -
Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
Daniel Jones, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
- and -
Christopher J. Mikesh, Esq.
MAYER BROWN, LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Weimer Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WEIMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 6:25-cv-01293 (M.D. Fla., July 11, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Finastra
customers' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and
financial account numbers (the "Private Information") from
hackers.
According to the complaint, Finastra detected unusual activity on
some of its computer systems on November 7, 2024. In response, the
company conducted an investigation which revealed that an
unauthorized party had access to certain company files between
October 31, 2024 and November 8, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). Yet,
Finastra waited seven (7) months to notify the public that they
were at risk.
As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and "Class
Members" had no idea for seven months that their Private
Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue
to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other
forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain
for their respective lifetimes.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Finastra's negligent conduct as the Private Information
that Finastra collected and maintained is now in the hands of data
thieves and other unauthorized third parties.
Finastra Technology Inc. provides banking software and solutions.
The Company offers solutions for retail and wholesale banking,
treasury and capital markets, and risk management. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Wallace, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 244-5660
Facsimile: 646-417-5967
Email: jwallace@sirillp.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Neil P. Williams, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: tbean@sirillp.com
nwilliams@sirillp.com
FINNLEYS GOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Finnleys Good Findings, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07788
(N.D. Ill., July 10, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website,
Finnleysonline.com to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Finnleysonline.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by
Finnleys Good Findings. Yet, Finnleysonline.com contains
significant access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website.
In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and
visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website. Thus, Finnleys Good Findings excludes the blind and
visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the
growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of
the common marketplace and daily living.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Magnolia Boutique's policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
FLEET QUEST: Bid to Certify Class Held in Abeyance
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAZMINE WALTON, et al., v.
FLEET QUEST LOGISTICS, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00770-PLM-RSK
(W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an order that
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is held in abeyance pending
compliance with Local Rule 7.1(d).
The Court further entered an order that:
-- Movant shall file the certificate required by Local Rule
7.1(d) within five days of the date of this Order. Failure to
timely file the certificate will result in the dismissal of
the motion.
-- Any response to the motion shall be filed within 14 days of
the filing of the certificate, should the certificate be
filed.
Fleet is a transportation and logistics company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BBssLm at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: Spouse Replaces Deceased Plaintiff in Gift Card Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JUDY MAY, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01314-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth
Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division, grants the motion to substitute
Denver May -- as successor interest of Judy May -- for Judy May.
The Clerk will substitute the estate of Judy May through Denver May
as Plaintiff and class representative in place of Judy May.
The Court denies Motion to Intervene as to Denver May and grants it
as to Maureen Kennedy and Joan Ehly. The Clerk will add Maureen
Kennedy and Joan Ehly as Plaintiffs and class representatives. The
Proposed Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend is granted. The
Proposed Plaintiffs will file a Second Amended Complaint that
complies with the ruling in this Order within 30 days of the
issuance of this Order.
The amended complaint was filed July 17.
Before the Court is Denver May's Motion for Substitution as
Plaintiff, Intervention, and Leave to Amend Complaint. Mr. May is
the husband and successor in interest to deceased Plaintiff Judy
May. Defendants Google LLC, Google Arizona LLC, Google Payment
Corp., and Does 1-10 opposed. Mr. May, Maureen Kennedy and Joan
Ehly, the Proposed Plaintiffs, filed a reply. On May 9, 2025, the
Court deemed that the matter is suitable to be determined without
oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for May 22.
In April 2021, Judy May fell victim to a gift card scam involving
Google Play gift cards. On March 5, 2024, May filed a complaint
alleging violations of the California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act ("CLRA"), and
Cal. Penal Code Section 496 ("Section 496"), and conversion against
Google. On May 13, 2024, Google filed a motion to dismiss.
On Nov. 4, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Google's motion to dismiss. On Dec. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed
an Amended Complaint. On Jan. 17, 2025, Counsel for Judy May filed
a suggestion of death of Plaintiff Judy May. On March 25, 2025, the
Proposed Plaintiffs filed the Motion for substitution as plaintiff,
intervention, and leave to amend complaint.
Mr. May, husband and successor in interest of deceased Ms. May,
moves to be substituted to pursue Ms. May's claims on her behalf.
The Plaintiff argues that the motion for substitution is timely,
that Ms. May's claims survive her death, and that Mr. May is a
proper party for substitution as the successor in interest to his
deceased wife, Ms. May.
Google does not contend that substitution would be improper under
Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather Google
argues that there is no standing for the Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA
claims and that Google would be prejudiced. Google contends those
claims must be dismissed.
The Court finds that the Proposed Plaintiffs' motion satisfies the
requirements of Rule 25(a). First, the motion is timely, as Ms.
May's attorney filed a Suggestion of Death on Jan. 17, 2025, and
the motion to substitute was filed on March 25, 2025. Second, the
claims are not extinguished. Third, Mr. May as successor in
interest of deceased Ms. May is a proper party for substitution.
Accordingly, Mr. May is a proper party for substitution as Ms.
May's successor in interest under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25.
The Court finds that Google essentially seeks dismissal of the UCL
and CLRA claims, which is not the proper subject for Mr. May's
motion for substitution. Judge Freeman says Google can bring its
futility challenge based on the lack of standing in a motion to
dismiss after substitution.
Google further argues that permitting Mr. May to substitute as to
the UCL and CLRA claims would cause undeniable prejudice to Google
because Google would be unable to cross-examine the deceased Ms.
May. Judge Freeman opines that the Proposed Plaintiffs do not seek
to materially alter the claims, and Google can rely on its own
records in lieu of Ms. May's testimony to defend the case. For
these reasons, the Court grants the Proposed Plaintiffs' motion to
substitute Mr. May as successor interest of Ms. May.
The Proposed Plaintiffs move the Court to grant intervention of Mr.
May, Maureen Kennedy and Joan Ehly as named plaintiffs seeking to
pursue their own claims in this class action. Google opposes
intervention by the Proposed Plaintiffs.
Judge Freeman holds that the Proposed Plaintiffs' motion is timely.
The Court also notes that Ms. Kennedy's claims overlap with those
of Ms. May, and that Ms. Ehly is a member of the non-contact class
that was alleged in Plaintiff Judy May's original complaint.
Accordingly, Judge Freeman finds Ms. Ehly and Ms. Kennedy's
participation in this litigation would not significantly expand the
scope of the litigation.
The Court also finds, among other things, that Ms. Ehly and Ms.
Kennedy have shown that they have significant protectable interests
in this action. Both Ms. Ehly and Ms. Kennedy assert that they were
victims of Google gift card scams and that Google has the means to
track gift card purchases, account creation, redemption and other
information related to the specific gift cards involved in the
scams. Nonetheless, Court finds that Mr. May has failed to show
that he has a significantly protectable interest relating to the
property or transaction which is the subject of the action.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. May does not fall under the
definition of the putative class and cannot intervene as of right
under Rule 24(a). For these reasons, the Court finds Ms. Ehly and
Ms. Kennedy have shown that they have significant protectable
interests in this action, and Mr. May has not shown that he has a
significant protectable interest in this action.
The Proposed Plaintiffs seek leave to amend the complaint. The
Proposed Plaintiffs argue that there is good cause for amendment
under Rule 16 because Ms. May's passing was unforeseen, and
Proposed Plaintiffs have been diligent.
The Court finds that good cause exists for the Proposed Plaintiffs
to amend the complaint. Because the Court finds that good cause
exists, the Court next analyzes whether the proposed amendment
satisfies Rule 15(a). The Court finds that none of the Foman
factors are present, citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962).
Judge Freeman opines that the Proposed Plaintiffs have not unduly
delayed in seeking leave to file the second amended complaint
("SAC") following the passing of Ms. May. Additionally, this case
is still at the pleading stage, and filing the SAC would not delay
the proceedings. There is also no evidence of bad faith or dilatory
motive. Moreover, Judge Freeman adds, Google has failed to show
that it is prejudiced by the amendment.
Google argues that the new allegations in the Proposed Plaintiff's
SAC would "put many new facts and internal Google teams at issue."
Nonetheless, Judge Freeman finds Google has failed to show that any
expanded scope in dispute would be undue. For these reasons, the
Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4whs9ywv from PacerMonitor.com.
GUARDIAN TERMITE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Waligora Says
----------------------------------------------------------
JACOB WALIGORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GUARDIAN TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01129-LCB (N.D. Ala., July 11, 2025) is
an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
Plaintiff Waligora was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
Guardian Termite and Pest Control, Inc. provides termite and pest
control services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq.
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Holmes, Ave. NE Suite 100
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 532-2222
Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
Email: teri@mastandoartrip.com
artrip@mastandoartrip.com
HAPPY HIPPO: Faces Boyce Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
MINDY BOYCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HAPPY HIPPO, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00582-UA-LPA
(M.D.N.C., July 10, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has asked Defendant to stop contacting
her on March 25, 2025, but the Defendant continued to send her text
messages on March 28, 2025, April 4, 2025, April 11, 2025, April
21, 2025, and April 26, 2025.
The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Classes defined as
follows:
INTERNAL DO NOT CALL CLASS: All persons within the United States
who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint,
(1) were sent a text message from Defendant or anyone on the
Defendant's behalf, (2) regarding Defendant's goods, products or
services, (3) to said person's residential telephone number, (4)
after making a request to Defendant to not receive future text
messages.
The DNC Class refers to all persons in the United States who,
within the four years prior to the filing of this action through
the date of class certification, (1) were sent more than one text
message within any 12-month period; (2) where the person's
telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry for at least thirty days; (3) regarding Defendant's goods,
products, and/or eye exam and related services; (4) to said
person's residential cellular telephone number; (5) after making a
request to Defendant to not receive further text messages by
replying with a "stop" or similar opt-out instruction in response
to Defendant's text messages.
Happy Hippo is an online kratom retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC
PO Box 54
Asheville, NC 28802
Telephone: (828) 316-6902
E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
HEART TO HEART: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEART TO HEART AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. D/B/A
HART TO HEART TRANSPORTATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03597
(E.D. Pa., July 14, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant up to
60 days wages and benefits pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60
days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without
cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees
in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were
terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the
60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the
suit.
Heart to Heart Ambulance Service, Inc. d/b/a Hart to Heart
Transportation provide specialty care transport, ambulance,
wheelchair and paratransit services in Maryland and Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
Email: phoward@smbb.com
HELLO PRODUCTS: Toothpaste Contains Heavy Metals, Browne Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMANY BROWNE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. HELLO PRODUCTS LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 7:25-cv-05698 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2025) seeks
stop the Defendant's deceptive, unfair, and unsafe business
practice of manufacturing, distributing, advertising, marketing,
and selling its toothpaste products which contain or risk
containing dangerously high levels of heavy metals like lead and
mercury.
The products at issue are all of Defendant's Hello-branded
toothpastes, including without limitation Hello Kids Dragon Dazzle
Toothpaste and Hello Kids Fluoride Free Toothpaste Fresh
Watermelon.
Accordingly, prior to placing the Products into the stream of
commerce and the hands of consumers to use on themselves and their
children, Defendant knew or should have known that the Products
contained or risked containing significant and unsafe levels of
lead and/or mercury. Yet Defendant omitted this information on
packaging and otherwise failed to warn about the significant
presence or risk of presence of heavy metals, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied on the
Defendant's representations and omissions, which led them to
believe the Products were safe, healthy, unadulterated, and without
significant levels of heavy metals, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff is one of many consumers who purchased toothpaste for
regular and ordinary use.
The Defendant sells, manufactures, and/or distributes the
toothpaste Products, including to consumers in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Victoria J. Maniatis, Esq.
Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
William J. Edelman, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: 212-594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
awolf@milberg.com
wedelman@milberg.com
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Court Orders Repleading of Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Johnny M. Bush, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Honda
Development & Manufacturing of America LLC, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 1:25-cv-00893-RDP (N.D. Ala.), Chief U.S. District Judge R.
David Proctor of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama granted in part Defendant's Partial Motion to
Dismiss and Motion for a More Definite Statement.
The court ruled that Plaintiff must replead his class claims after
finding significant deficiencies in the proposed class action
allegations. Judge Proctor stated that the Motion is due to be
granted in part and that the court will require Plaintiff to
replead his class claims consistent with the directions in the
court's opinion and order.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in October 2024 in the Southern
District of Ohio alleging that Honda Development & Manufacturing of
America, LLC "engaged in a systemic pattern and practice of racial
discrimination in employment opportunities" that violates Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. The complaint
alleges that "he and the putative class members did not have the
opportunity to apply for certain jobs or promotions, were
discouraged from applying, or applied and did not receive such
positions while working for Defendant."
The case was transferred to the Northern District of Alabama on
June 9, 2025, after the Southern District of Ohio granted the
Motion to Change Venue and transferred the case here under 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a).
The court examined multiple Rule 23 class action requirements and
found substantial deficiencies. Regarding ascertainability, the
court noted that business records might indicate who applied for
and did not receive a position, they would not reveal the class
members who did not see positions that were not properly posted,
did not know about the vacancies, or did not hear about the
positions through word of mouth.
On commonality,, the court analyzed Plaintiff's allegations against
the Supreme Court's standard from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.
The court cited the Supreme Court's requirement that "commonality
requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have
suffered the same injury" and that "their claims must depend upon a
common contention - for example, the assertion of discriminatory
bias on the part of the same supervisor.
The court found that "the complaint, as currently drafted, prompts
substantial questions about whether Plaintiff can show Rule
23(a)(2) commonality" because "the practices Plaintiff complains of
include the subjective evaluation of criteria and a variety of
different interactions and processes related to job openings.
Judge Proctor identified typicality issues, noting that Plaintiff
raises class allegations regarding departments and locations in
which he never worked, jobs he never held, supervisory chains of
command he never reported to, and fact situations he was never
associated with." The court concluded that "the complaint appears
to present typicality issues.
Regarding adequacy, the court found thorny questions about whether
Plaintiff is an adequate representative for the class as alleged
and defined" because while Plaintiff is responsible for supervising
and managing various subordinate employees, the class definition
includes "employees who seek supervisory, managerial, or
administrative positions.
The court agreed with Defendant that "Dukes acknowledged serious
doubt about whether claims for monetary relief may be certified
under Rule 23(b)(2)and held that the only potential exception was
where monetary relief was "incidental to the injunctive or
declaratory relief. The court found that exception inapplicable
because Plaintiff's complaint seeks damages of "back pay; front
pay; lost job benefits; and preferential rights to jobs, which are
not incidental to injunctive or declaratory relief, but instead
must be determined on an individualized basis.
According to the court, Plaintiff's complaint also fits the second
shotgun pleading category because it adopts all preceding factual
counts, including those that are immaterial to that particular
cause of action. The court identified numerous vague or conclusory
allegations including claims about word-of-mouth information,
promotional practices, and "discriminatory obstacles and disparate
impact.
Judge Proctor granted Defendant's motion in part, ordering that on
or before July 29, 2025, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint
that remedies the concerns laid out above." The court emphasized
that "this opportunity to replead does not mean that the court
believes that a class action is an appropriate vehicle for
Plaintiff's legal theories. That question is still to be
determined.
The court warned that "the amended complaint should only include
class action allegations that Plaintiff has a good faith basis for
believing are supported by Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit case
law.
A copy of the court's Memorandum Order and Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=memBsa
J. QUEEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. J. Queen New York, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-07812 (N.D. Ill., July
10, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, through Jqueen-ny.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Seaside Breeze provides to their
non-disabled customers through Jqueen-ny.com.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Jqueen-ny.com is a commercial website that offers products and
services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view
luxurious home textiles, make purchases, and perform a variety of
other functions.
The Defendant controls and operates the website in the State of
Illinois and throughout the United States.BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison Chan Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hoon Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK HOON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00955 (E.D. Wis., July 3, 2025) is a class action arising
from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data.
According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information about its clients and
its current and former employees. But the Defendant lost control
over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently
protected computer systems in a data breach.
Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because
the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on
cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards
or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's
failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable
position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, the suit
alleges.
Johnson Controls, Inc. produces electronics and HVAC equipment. The
Company offers HVAC equipment, building automation, security, fire
detection, batteries, and other related products, as well as
building control systems, energy management, and integrated
facility management services. Johnson Controls serves customers
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
JYOTSNA PROPERTIES: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SOLOMON STANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JYOTSNA PROPERTIES LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-03828-VMC (N.D. Ga., July 10, 2025) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
commercial property known as Sunoco 4551 Gas Station, located at
4551 Brownsville Road, Powder Springs, GA, is not accessible to
mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA.
Jyotsna Properties LLC specializes in property management services
focusing on maximizing the value of residential and commercial
properties while ensuring tenant satisfaction. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pete M. Monismith, Esq.
1000 Main Street, Suite 2016
Pittsburgh, PA 15215
Telephone: (724) 610-1881
Email: pete@monismithlaw.com
KREWE DU OPTIC: Villaverde Sues Over Unlawful Calls
---------------------------------------------------
Amanda Villaverde, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KREWE DU OPTIC, LLC, Case No. CACE-25-010169
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 9, 2025), is
brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for
violations Of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act ("FTSA").
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff,
brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's
Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable
of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by
text message ("Text Message Sales Calls").
Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted
Krewe ("Krewe Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID
Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification
services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving
telephone calls, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
Krewe Du Optic, LLC, is Foreign Limited Liability Company, which
sells various goods to persons throughout the country through its
online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
LEE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Arp Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS ARP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEE ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00080-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, July 15, 2025) is a class action
arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive
data.
According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health
information about its current and former employees. But the
Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals
infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data
breach.
The Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or
mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals
unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII/PHI.
Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures
placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering
them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit.
Lee Enterprises, Incorporated operates as a media company. The
Company publishes newspapers, weekly, classified, and specialty
publications, as well as offers online services, including websites
supporting its daily newspapers and other publications. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori Bullock, Esq.
BULLOCK LAW PLLC
309 E 5th Street, Suite 202B
Des Moines, IA 50309
Tel: (515) 423-0551
Email: lbullock@bullocklawpllc.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Johansen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order granting in part their motion to enforce judgment in
the lawsuit entitled Ken Johansen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Liberty Mutual Group,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-12920-ADB, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The case arises from the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls to the Plaintiff's and Class members' residential telephone.
On Feb. 28, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On Jan. 15, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to enforce judgment
as to third-party Defendant Digitas, Inc.
On June 5, 2025, Judge Allison D. Burroughs entered an Order
granting in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
insofar as the Court finds that Digitas breached its contractual
duty to indemnify Liberty Mutual and owed any attorneys' fees that
Liberty Mutual incurred in defending against the Johansen lawsuit.
The Court, however, did not render a finding on the exact dollar
amount because Liberty Mutual did not make a specific request for
damages or present any evidence on the amount of damages alleged at
summary judgment.
The appellate case is entitled Johansen v. Liberty Mutual Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 25-1609, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on July 1, 2025. [BN]
Third Party Defendant–Appellee DIGITAS, INC. is represented by:
Michael R. Dockterman, Esq.
STEPTOE LLP
227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 577-1243
- and -
Laura Greenberg-Chao, Esq.
HENSHON KLEIN LLP
37 Walnut St., Ste. 110
Wellesley, MA 02481
Telephone: (617) 367-1912
- and -
Julianne Landsvik, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
500 Boylston St.
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 937-2407
Defendant-Appellant LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC. is represented by:
Lauren J. Coppola, Esq.
Anthony A. Froio, Esq.
Manleen Singh, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 Boylston St., Ste. 2500
Boston, MA 02199
Telephone: (617) 859-2736
- and -
Michael Reif, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Ave., Ste. 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 349-0171
Defendant-Appellee SPANISH QUOTES, INC. is represented by:
Anthony A. Froio, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 Boylston St., Ste. 2500
Boston, MA 02199
Telephone: (617) 267-2300
MAINLINE HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Carter Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
GOERGE CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAINLINE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:25-cv-665-LPR (E.D. Ark., July 3, 2025) is an action
against the Defendant for its failure to adequately protect the
personally identifiable information and protected health
information of its patients and customers from unauthorized access
and disclosure.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants'
security failures resulting in the Data Breach have exposed the
Plaintiff and the other Class members to substantial and continuing
risks of identity theft, financial fraud, and other forms of harm
that may persist for years or decades.
The Plaintiff and the Class members will have to incur costs to pay
for third-party credit and identity theft monitoring services for
the rest of their lives as a direct result of the Data Breach.
Mainline Health Systems Inc operates as a non-profit organization.
The Organization provides pediatrics, diabetes health education,
oral health, dentistry, immunizations, and pharmacy management
services. Mainline Health Systems serves clients in the State of
Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC
500 President Clinton Ave., Ste. 110
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 255-8569
Email: chris@jefirm.com
- and –
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
MB GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Besnier Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT-KARIM BESNIER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MB GLOBAL LOGISTICS, INC.; and
ANDRIUS ZEMAITIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07932 (N.D. Ill.,
July 14, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Besnier was employed by the Defendants as a delivery
driver.
MB Global Logistics, Inc. is a transportation company based in
Elmhurst, IL. The company offer integrated services and provide
solutions customized. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com
- and -
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
META PLATFORMS: Henderson Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:25-cv-05589 (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2025) alleges violation
of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and California
Invasion of Privacy Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Meta employs hidden
tracking code, including software known as the Meta Pixel ("Meta
Pixel" or "Pixel"), which sends to Meta time-stamped, personally
identifiable records of individuals' personal information,
including their activities on and communications with websites.
Through the Pixel's surveillance, Meta obtains vast quantities of
protected data on a daily basis from across the internet.
When an individual logs into their Facebook or Instagram account
through their web browser, Meta can associate the personal
browsing-related information it collects from the individual's
interactions with other websites with their Facebook or Instagram
profile information (e.g., names, email addresses, contact
information). This happens often without the individual's knowledge
or consent, says the suit.
Meta Platforms, Inc. operates as a social technology company. The
Company builds applications and technologies that help people
connect, find communities, and grow businesses. Meta Platform is
also involved in advertisements, augmented, and virtual reality.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Michael K. Sheen, Esq.
Amelia A. Haselkorn, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
Email: msobol@lchb.com
msheen@lchb.com
ahaselkorn@lchb.com
- and -
Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
Email: dcuthbertson@lchb.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Adeeb Product Liability Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DANIELLE ADEEB, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05967-VC, was removed from the
U.S. District Court for the Easter District of Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July
15, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. :25-cv-05967-VC to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Vince Chhabria.
The Adeeb suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation
proceeding, MDL No. Lead case: 3:16-md-02741.
Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers
corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq.
Douglas A. Dellaccio, Jr., Eq.
R. Andrew Jones, Esq.
Stephen Hunt, Jr., Esq.
Joel Caldwell, Esq.
CORY WATSON, PC
254 Court Avenue, Suite 511
Memphis, TN 38103
Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com
ddellaccio@corywatson.com
ajones@corywatson.com
shunt@corywatson.com
jcaldwell@corywatson.com
MXR IMAGING INC: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MXR Imaging, Inc. The
case is styled as Cynthia Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees v. MXR Imaging, Inc., Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0009366 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
July 9, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
MXR -- https://mxrimaging.com/ -- is one of the nation's largest
distributors of medical imaging equipment and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC
9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
Phone: 916-525-0716
Fax: 916-760-3733
Email: jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com
NATIONAL HOCKEY: World Appeals Antitrust Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WORLD ASSOCIATION OF ICEHOCKEY PLAYERS UNIONS NORTH AMERICA
DIVISION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
their lawsuit entitled World Association of Icehockey Players
Unions North America Division, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Hockey
League, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02135-TL, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.
On Jan. 16, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction.
On Feb. 13, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss.
On May 23, 2025, Judge Tana Lin entered an Order granting the
Defendants' motions to dismiss. The case is dismissed with
prejudice. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is
denied as moot.
The appellate case is entitled World Association of Icehockey
Players Unions North America Division, et al. v. National Hockey
League, et al., Case No. 25-3929, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 1, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 7, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on July 11,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on August 11, 2025;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 12, 2025; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 14, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants WORLD ASSOCIATION OF ICEHOCKEY PLAYERS UNIONS
NORTH AMERICA DIVISION, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:
Judith Zahid, Esq.
ZELLE, LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1230
Oakland, CA 94607
- and -
James Robertson Martin, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 375
Washington, DC 20006
- and -
Michael Rubin, Esq.
Stacey Leyton, Esq.
Bronwen O'Herin, Esq.
ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
- and -
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
Richard M. Brunell, Esq.
HILLIARD SHADOWEN, LLP
1717 W. 6th Street, Suite 290
Austin, TX 78703
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
Matthew Huntley Rice, Esq.
Trevor K. Scheetz, Esq.
SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC
321 N. Clark Street, 25th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
- and -
Michael Craig Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
- and -
Jeffrey Shinder, Esq.
SHINDER CANTOR LERNER, LLP
14 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10122
- and -
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT, LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, et al. are represented
by:
Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq.
STOEL RIVES, LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
- and -
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP
2001 K. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
- and -
James Savitt, Esq.
Sarah Gohmann Bigelow, Esq.
FENNEMORE CRAIG PC
1425 4th Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98101
- and -
Derek Ludwin, Esq.
Lauren Willard Zehmer, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
One CityCenter 850, 10th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
NAVITAS LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs v. Navitas, LLC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07813 (N.D.
Ill., July 10, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Navitas provides to their non-disabled customers through
Navitasorganics.com, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on
Navitasorganics.com. Looking to make a change and diversify her
nutrition, she wanted to try organic food and began researching its
benefits. While reading a blog about sustainable living, she came
across an article that mentioned Navitas Organics, a brand known
for offering premium, plant-based products that support a healthy,
sustainable lifestyle.
Intrigued by the brand's emphasis on nutrition and environmental
responsibility, she decided to explore their offerings. On April 3,
2025, she visited the Navitas Organics website and was particularly
drawn to the detailed information on chia seeds, including their
suitability for smoothies and as a topping for healthy dishes, the
suit says.
As a result of direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conduct,
the Plaintiff suffers interference with daily activities, as well
as emotional distress, including emotional and mental anguish, loss
of sleep, violation of privacy, humiliation, stress, anger,
frustration, shock, embarrassment, and anxiety, the Plaintiff
avers.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Navitas's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Navitasorganics.com is a commercial website that offers products
and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to
view organic plant-based products, make purchases, and perform a
variety of other functions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison Chan Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (844) 731-3343
Facsimile: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: achan@ealg.law
NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA: Becker Files Suit in D. Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan of North
America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Dennis Becker, Jean
Coney, Gabrielle Wrigley, Vicki Laquidara, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nissan of North America,
Inc., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Case No. 1:25-cv-00845-UNA (D. Del.,
July 8, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Nissan North America Inc. -- https://www.nissanusa.com/ -- operates
in the automotive industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kelly A. Green, Esq.
Jason Z. Miller, Esq.
SMITH, KATZENSTEIN, & JENKINS LLP
1000 West Street, Suite 1501
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 652-8400
Fax: (302) 652-8405
Email: kag@skjlaw.com
jm@skjlaw.com
OCUCO INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Leland Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA LELAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OCUCO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:25-cv-01707 (M.D. Fla., July 2, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
protected health information and other personally identifiable
information of patients who received eye care services from the
Defendant's clients.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the mechanism of the
cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of the
Plaintiff's data was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant
was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the
information from those risks left the data in a dangerous
condition.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI from a foreseeable
and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had the Defendant
implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls
consistent with industry standards and best practices, it could
have prevented the Data Breach.
The Defendant's conduct resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of
Plaintiff's private information to cybercriminals. The unauthorized
disclosure of the Plaintiff's PHI constitutes an invasion of a
legally protected privacy interest, that is traceable to the
Defendant's failure to adequately secure the PHI in its custody,
and has resulted in actual, particularized, and concrete harm to
the Plaintiff, says the suit.
Ocuco, Inc. provides optical software solutions such as practice
management and electronic health record systems for eyecare
businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caitlyn Prichard Miller, Esq.
AYLSTOCK WITKIN KRIES & OVERHOLTZ
17 E. Main Street
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Email: cmiller@awkolaw.com
-and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
OLO INC: M&A Investigates Sale to Thomas Bravo for $10.25 Per Share
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-- Olo Inc. (NYSE: OLO) related to its sale to Thoma Bravo for
$10.25 per share in cash to Olo shareholders.
Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/olo-inc/. It is free and there is no
cost or obligation to you.
PB Bankshares Inc. (NASDAQ: PBBK) related to its sale to Norwood
Financial Corp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, PB
Bankshares' shareholders will have the option to elect to receive
either 0.7850 shares of Norwood common stock or $19.75 in cash for
each common share of PB Bankshares they own. The election is
subject to proration to ensure that, in the aggregate, 80% of the
transaction consideration will be paid in the form of Norwood
common stock.
Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/pb-bankshares-inc/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- CARGO Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRGX) related to its sale to
Concentra Biosciences, LLC for $4.379 in cash per CARGO share, plus
one non-transferable contingent value right, representing the right
to receive: (i) 100% of the closing net cash of CARGO in excess of
$217.5 million; and (ii) 80% of the net proceeds from the sale,
license, or other disposition of either (a) CRG-022, a CDRR CAR
T-cell therapy, or (b) CRG-023, a CD19/CD20/CD22 tri-specific CAR T
therapy, or (c) the Allogeneic Platform, that occurs within 2 years
following the closing.
Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cargo-therapeutics-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- HomeStreet, Inc. (NASDAQ: HMST), relating to the proposed
merger with Mechanics Bank. Under the terms of the agreement,
HomeStreet shareholders are expected to own approximately 8.3% of
the combined company.
Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/homestreet-inc-hmst/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. 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 company, director or officer 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]
ORKIN LLC: Charles Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS CHARLES, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ORKIN, LLC, and ROLLINS, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-03819-SDG (N.D. Ga., July 10, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, award of reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and the class are current and former non-exempt Route
Manager employees (RMs) of the Defendant.
Specifically, the Plaintiff complains that he, as well as other
similarly situated RMs, were regularly required to work
off-the-clock, as a result of the Defendant's company-wide
corporate policies, applicable to all of Defendants' "Orkin" branch
locations operated by the Defendants.
The Defendants, own and operate over 400 Orkin branch offices and
58 franchises in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3012
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
rmorgan@forthepeople.com
PETALUMA HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Gerson Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETALUMA HEALTH CENTER, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order
granting a motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Darlene Gerson,
individually and as next friend on behalf of J.J. (minor),
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Petaluma Health Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-03870-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of California, Sonoma
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged medical
malpractice.
On Feb. 14, 2025, United States of America filed a motion to remand
the case, which Judge Vince Chhabria granted on May 30, 2025. The
remand is stayed while Petaluma Health decides whether to appeal.
It will be further stayed pending appeal if Petaluma Health decides
to pursue one. The parties are directed to file a joint status
report within 45 days of this ruling. If Petaluma Health chooses
not to appeal, the Court will enter an order remanding the case.
The appellate case is entitled Gerson, et al. v. Petaluma Health
Center, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-4090, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 1, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 7, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on July 14,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on August 14, 2025;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 22, 2025; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 22, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees DARLENE GERSON, individually and as next
friend on behalf of J.J. (minor), individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON, LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Defendant-Appellant PETALUMA HEALTH CENTER, INC. is represented
by:
Matthew Sidney Freedus, Esq.
POWERS PYLES SUTTER & VERVILLE, PC
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
- and -
Kathryn Ellen Doi, Esq.
FELDESMAN LEIFER LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2580
Sacramento, CA 95814
Movant-Appellee UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by:
Sapna Mehta, Esq.
Pamela Johann, Esq.
DOJ - Office of the U.S. Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
PETALUMA HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Johnson Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETALUMA HEALTH CENTER, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order
granting a motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Thurman
Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Petaluma Health Center, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-03777-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of California, Sonoma
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged medical
malpractice.
On Feb. 14, 2025, United States of America filed a motion to remand
the case, which Judge Vince Chhabria granted on May 30, 2025. The
remand is stayed while Petaluma Health decides whether to appeal.
It will be further stayed pending appeal if Petaluma Health decides
to pursue one. The parties are directed to file a joint status
report within 45 days of this ruling. If Petaluma Health chooses
not to appeal, the Court will enter an order remanding the case.
The appellate case is entitled Johnson v. Petaluma Health Center,
Inc., et al., Case No. 25-4088, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 1, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 7, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on July 14,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on August 14, 2025;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 22, 2025; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 22, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee THURMAN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
John Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
- and -
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Defendant-Appellant PETALUMA HEALTH CENTER, INC. is represented
by:
Matthew Sidney Freedus, Esq.
POWERS PYLES SUTTER & VERVILLE, PC
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
- and -
Brendan Tyler, Esq.
FELDESMAN LLP
1129 20th Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
- and -
Kathryn Ellen Doi, Esq.
FELDESMAN LEIFER LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2580
Sacramento, CA 95814
Movant-Appellee UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by:
Sapna Mehta, Esq.
Pamela Johann, Esq.
DOJ - Office of the U.S. Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Dobrovic Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radiology Associates
of Richmond, Inc. The case is styled as Kristina Dobrovic, Jam
Dejong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Radiology Associates of Richmond, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00529
(E.D. Va., July 9, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Radiology Associates of Richmond, Inc. (RAR) --
https://rarichmond.com/ -- offers diagnostic, vascular and
neurovascular interventional services to hospitals, freestanding
emergency centers and outpatient imaging centers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth R. Carroll, Esq.
COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP
3311 West Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23230
Phone: (804) 999-9999
Email: scarroll@hurtinva.com
READY CAPITAL: Quinn Class Action Consolidated with Goebel Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jerry Quinn, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. Ready Capital
Corporation, Thomas E. Capasse, and Andrew Ahlborn, Case No.
1:25-cv-01883 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered
an order consolidating the Goebel action with:
" David Goebel, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. Ready Capital Corporation, Thomas E. Capasse, and
Andrew Ahlborn, Case No. 1:25-cv-03373-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)."
Ready is a non-bank real estate and small business lender.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 8, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PKNxnM
at no extra charge.[CC]
SARAYA USA: Grimbaldeston Sues Over Mislabeled Sweetener Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
IAN GRIMBALDESTON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SARAYA USA, INC. d/b/a LAKANTO, Defendant,
Case No. 3:25-cv-05649 (N.D. Cal., July 3, 2025) is a class action
seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for materially misleading
statements made on the labels of its LAKANTO MONKFRUIT SWEETENER
(the "Products" or "Product").
According to the complaint, despite numerous, prominent
representations on the Product labels that the Products are a
"MONKFRUIT SWEETENER" containing a "rare superfood prized for its
sweetness and ability to raise chi, or life energy" the Products
contain almost no monk fruit.
The Defendant intentionally makes these Representations to
capitalize on consumers' desire to purchase a premium sweetener
that is derived from a natural source: monk fruit. Furthermore, the
Defendant intentionally omits the truth—that the Products are
almost completely comprised of erythritol, a chemically processed
sugar alcohol with known health risks, including heart attack,
stroke and digestive issues, says the suit.
Saraya Co. Ltd. manufactures health and hygiene products. The
Company develops, manufactures, and sells various detergents,
disinfectant, mouthwash, and other hygiene products for household
and industrial use. Saraya also provides consulting services for
food hygiene and occupational health. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Naomi B. Spector, Esq.
KAMBERLAW, LLP
3451 Via Montebello
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Telephone: (310) 400-1053
Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com
SEMA4 HOLDINGS: Defendants' Answer to Helo Suit Due July 24
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vernon D. Oliver of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut issued a Memorandum & Order denying the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled NABIL HELO, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SEMA4
HOLDINGS CORP., ERIC SCHADT, KATHERINE STUELAND, ISAAC RO, and
RICHARD MIAO, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01131-VDO (D. Conn.).
Defendants' deadline to file an answer to the Second Amended
Complaint is July 24, 2025.
The Lead Plaintiff, Nabil Helo, commenced this securities class
action in September 2022 against Sema4 Holdings Corp., and
Individual Defendants Eric Schadt, Katherine Stueland, Isaac Ro,
and Richard Miao. By Order dated July 31, 2024, the Court dismissed
all claims against the Defendants with leave to replead. The
Plaintiff has since filed the Second Amended Complaint, alleging
that the Defendants committed securities fraud and seeks remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("the Exchange Act").
Before the Court is Defendants' renewed motion to dismiss all
claims with prejudice under Rule 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. After consideration of the record, the Court
finds that the matter is appropriate for a decision without a
hearing.
The Plaintiff and the Class are individuals, who purchased Sema4
securities between Jan. 18, 2022, and Aug. 15, 2022.
Sema4 is a health diagnostics testing company with a stated mission
to use artificial intelligence ("AI") to enable personalized
medicine for patients. Since its inception, Sema4 has racked up net
losses and was low on cash. The Company was initially part of Icahn
School of Medicine at Mount Sinai's Department of Genetics and
Genomic Sciences and the Icahn Institute for Genomics and
Multiscale Biology. In June 2017, Sema4 commenced operations as a
commercial entity and, after completing a business combination with
CM Life Sciences in July 2021, debuted on the Nasdaq Stock Market
as a publicly traded company.
Sema4 originally derived the majority of its revenue from its
diagnostic testing focused on women's health and oncology, but
sought to shift its business to data and analytics solutions by
commercializing its health intelligence platform, Centrellis.
Sema4 maintains a database that includes de-identified clinical
records, including more than 500,000 records with genomic profiles,
which is allegedly integrated in a way that it claims to enable
physicians to proactively diagnose and manage disease.
In January 2022, the Company announced that it would be acquiring
GeneDx, Inc., which provides rare disease diagnostic and exome
sequencing services, in a $623 million acquisition. On May 2, 2022,
the Company announced the closing of its acquisition of GeneDx.
The Individual Defendants were, during the Class Period, senior
executive officers and/or directors of the Company, who were privy
to confidential and proprietary information concerning the Company,
its operations, finances, financial condition, and present and
future business prospects. Schadt is the founder of Sema4 and
served as its Chief Executive Officer until May 2022; from May 2022
until his resignation, Schadt served as President and Chief R&D
Officer of the Company. Stueland has served as CEO of Sema4 since
May 2022 and, prior to the Company's acquisition of GeneDx, was the
President and CEO of GeneDx. Ro was the Chief Financial Officer
("CFO") of Sema4 from July 2021 to June 14, 2022, and provided
consulting services to Sema4 until February 2023. Miao was Interim
CFO of Sema4 from June 14, 2022, to Sept. 2, 2022.
Mr. Helo filed a putative class action complaint against the
Defendants on Sept. 7, 2022. On Nov. 16, 2022, the Court appointed
Helo as the lead plaintiff, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead
counsel, and Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff, LLC, as liaison
counsel. On Jan. 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the Amended
Complaint.
After the Court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim,
on Sept. 13, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC on Nov. 26, 2024, which the
Plaintiff opposed. On Feb. 20, 2025, the Defendants filed a reply.
The Plaintiff alleges two claims. First, he alleges that the
Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 because they disseminated or approved materially false and
misleading statements which they knew, or were deliberately
reckless in not knowing, were misleading. Second, the Plaintiff
claims the Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of
the Company within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and are, thus, liable for securities fraud.
The Plaintiff alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made misleading statements regarding the abilities and
potential of Centrellis, the Company's data platform. The Plaintiff
challenges statements about Centrellis made on four dates: Jan. 18,
2022 (announcing the upcoming GeneDx acquisition); March 14, 2022
(announcing Q4 and full year 2021 results), May 12, 2022
(announcing Q1 results), and June 16, 2022 (at the Goldman Health
Care Conference).
On Aug. 15, 2022, when, after the market closed, Sema4 announced
significant changes to its core R&D strategy and overall approach.
The Company disclosed that Schadt -- whose primary focus had been
the Centrellis project -- was stepping down from his roles as
President and Chief R&D Officer. The Company also disclosed that it
was eliminating approximately 250 employees, bringing the
percentage of legacy Sema4 employees that had been laid off since
the start of the Class Period to about 30%. The Company announced
that it had also hired two new R&D officers, Matt Davis and Gustavo
Stolovitzky.
On this news, the Company's share price plummeted by $0.80, or
33.33%, to close at $1.60 per share on Aug. 16, 2022. Then, on Nov.
14, 2022, it was disclosed to investors that the Company was
eliminating Sema4's reproductive testing segment, which would
include closing down Sema4's Stamford, CT laboratory and
eliminating approximately 500 more employees--a third reduction of
the Company's workforce.
In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants again argue that the
Plaintiff has not alleged an actionable misstatement, asserting
that he fails to plead falsity and that the statement he identified
are inactionable "puffery" or forward-looking statements protected
by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's ("PSLRA") safe
harbor. The Defendants also argue, among other things, that the
statements regarding the Company's intentions or plans for
Centrellis are not actionable as a matter of law, because they were
forward looking and were subject to meaningful cautionary
language.
Drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, Judge
Oliver says former employees testified that, while there was a
piece of technology called Centrellis at the company, the reality
is that Centrellis did not exist or lacked the ability to utilize
the data in accordance with its objectives. Judge Oliver points out
that these allegations support with particularity the claim that
statements regarding Centrellis were misleading.
Judge Oliver finds that the Defendants fail to show that the plain
language of the alleged statements are forward-looking. The
Defendants overlook that, in each of the statements flagged as
forward-looking, the speaker necessarily represents that Centrellis
presently exists. Therefore, after severing the forward-looking
elements from the statements, there remains non-forward-looking
representations about Centrellis that "communicate present or
historical fact." Even assuming that the statements were
forward-looking, Judge Oliver points out the Defendants fail to
show that statements about Centrellis are protected by the safe
harbor.
The Court also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff
plausibly alleges strong circumstantial evidence of conscious
misbehavior or recklessness on behalf of the Individual Defendants.
The testimony of the three former employees, which the Plaintiff
alleges with particularity to show they probably possessed
information related to Centrellis, provides strong evidence of
scienter, showing that the Individual Defendants had knowledge or
access to facts contradicting the public statements.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/52anxyzs from PacerMonitor.com.
Defendants are represented by:
Joseph W. Martini, Esq.
Leslie A. Cahill, Esq.
Spears Manning & Martini LLC
Tel: 203-292-9766
E-mail: jmartini@spearsmanning.com
lcahill@spearsmanning.com
- and -
Dean S. Kristy, Esq.
Fenwick & West LLP
Tel: 415-875-2300
E-mail: dkristy@fenwick.com
Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Slossberg, Esq.
Kristen Zaehringer, Esq.
Hurwitz Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff, LLC
Tel: 203-877-8000
E-mail: dslossberg@hssklaw.com
kzaehringer@hssklaw.com
- and -
Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Esq.
Natalie Pang, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
Tel: 310-201-9150
E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com
npang@glancylaw.com
SHADE STORE: Faces Eisenberg Class Suit Over Legacy Motor Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS EISENBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-05689 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 10, 2025) alleges that the Defendant advertised and sold
thousands of motorized shades and blinds with defective legacy
motors.
The Defendant is a nationwide retailer of customizable window
treatment goods, such as blinds, drapery, and shades, and has sold
thousands of such goods across the county, including in New York
and California.
One such customization option is a motorization feature, which
consumers can add to their product for an additional fee and allows
them to operate the goods through motorization as opposed to
manually.
Prior to the recent introduction of an updated model, the Defendant
used a motor now referred to as its "legacy motor."
These legacy motors have an inherent and fundamental defect. This
defect causes the motors to fail at high rates, disabling the
motorization feature, freezing the shades or blinds in place, and
necessitating a replacement motor, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, against Defendant for violation of
consumer protection laws, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for
particular purpose, and unjust enrichment.
The Defendant is a home decoration products provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
Courtney Rygalski, Esq.
COULSON P.C.
300 River Place Drive, Suite 1700
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 644-2685
E-mail: Nick@CoulsonPC.com
CRygalski@CoulsonPC.com
SNAP INC: Hilbert Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Mobile Apps
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREL HILBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SNAP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-05471 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its mobile application platforms
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's
mobile application contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.
Snap, Inc., is a company that sells online goods and services in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric L. Siegel, Esq.
ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC
888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (771) 220-6116
Facsimile: (202) 223-6625
Email: esiegel@ericsiegellaw.com
SOUTHERN VALLEY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Brief Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNULFO GARCIA-RAMOS,
PABLO CASTILLO-OLGUIN, and all others similarly situated, v.
SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT & VEGETABLE, INC.; HAMILTON GROWERS, INC.;
KENT HAMILTON; HAMILTON PRODUCE, L.P.; KENDA PROPERTIES, L.P.; WK
HOLDINGS, LLC; and WKW, LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-00054-WLS (M.D. Ga.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an
extension of 14 days for the filing of their brief in response to
the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification.
The Defendants' current submission deadline is July 14, 2025, and,
with the requested extension, the Defendants move for a revised
submission deadline by and through July 28, 2025.
Southern produces crops for food consumptions.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gPI9pH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Martin B. Heller, Esq.
David Lerner, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3500
Atlanta, GA 30909
Telephone: (404) 231-1400
Facsimile: (404) 240-4249
E-mail: mheller@fisherphillips.com
dlerner@fisherphillips.com
SPINDRIFT BEVERAGE: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SPINDRIFT BEVERAGE CO., INC., Defendant,
Case: 1:25-cv-07818 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2025) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://drinkspindrift.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Spindrift Beverage Co., Inc. manufactures small-batch sparkling
beverages using all-natural sources.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison Chan, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (844) 731-3343
Email: achan@ealg.law
SSA GROUP: Hicks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The SSA Group. The
case is styled as Mariah Hicks, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. The SSA
Group, SSA Group, LLC, Case No. CGC25626988 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., July 9, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
SSA Group -- https://thessagroup.com/ -- provides integrated food,
retail and ticketing solutions to cultural attractions across the
nation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20
Glendale, CA 91203-4007
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
Email: edwin@calljustice.com
STE. MICHELLE WINE: Gerber sues Over Inaccessible Establishment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Gerber & Jill Mcauley, and other similarly situated v.
STE. MICHELLE WINE ESTATES, LLC, d/b/a CHATEAU STE. MICHELLE, Case
No. 2:25-cv-01283 (W.D. Wash., July 8, 2025), is brought under the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Washington Law Against
Discrimination (WLAD), and Revised Code of Washington (RCW) as a
result of the Defendant's inaccessible establishment.
As an "establishment serving food or drink" that also functions as
a "place of public gathering," SMWE is a property subject to all
the requirements of the ADA, including requirements that prohibit
discrimination based on disability. Patrons with disabilities may
purchase tickets to SMWE events, including their Concert Series,
but SMWE has a policy that limits the number of people who can
accompany a patron with a disability at the designated accessible
entrance.
Each patron with a disability who uses the designated accessible
entrance at SMWE can bring only one individual into the entrance.
On information and belief, this policy does not apply to patrons
who do not use the designated accessible entrances. Instead, other
patrons who use the non-accessible entrances may bring in as many
companions as desired.
The Complaint for Damages in the 2015 SMWE lawsuit alleged that
SMWE violated the ADA by failing to provide reasonable
accommodations or remediate accessibility barriers, including, but
not limited to: Failing to ensure that patrons with disabilities
who used the early entry; accommodation could enter with more than
one companion; Failing to fully install features required in all
"designated" accessible parking spaces; Failing to install parking
signs at the designated accessible parking spaces that fully comply
with the height requirements; Failing to ensure that routes to
seating and lawn areas open to the public are safe for; patrons who
use wheelchairs; Failing to provide equal access and opportunity
for individuals with disabilities to purchase tickets for SMWE
concert performances as do patrons without disabilities, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs use power wheelchairs.
STE. MICHELLE WINE ESTATES, LLC (SMWE) is a venue that offers
patrons the opportunity to consume wine and other beverages
produced on-site.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Conrad Reynoldson, Esq.
Dustine Bowker, Esq.
WASHINGTON CIVIL & DISABILITY ADVOCATE
4115 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite B
Seattle, WA 98105
Phone: (206) 876-8515
Email: conrad@wacda.com
dustine@wacda.com
- and -
Raeanne Hutchison, Esq.
CANTILEVER LAW
9500 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 310
Seattle, WA 98115
Phone: (206) 755-4527
Email: CantileverLaw@outlook.com
STRATEGY INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in E.D. Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Strategy Incorporated ("Strategy" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:MSTR) in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Strategy securities between April
30, 2024 and April 4, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until July 15, 2025 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding
Strategy's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the anticipated
profitability of the Company's bitcoin-focused investment strategy
and treasury operations was overstated; (2) the various risks
associated with bitcoin's volatility and the magnitude of losses
Strategy could recognize on the value of its digital assets
following its adoption of ASU 2023-08 were understated; and (3) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Strategy shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email
at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
SUNRISE CREDIT: Record Phone Calls Without Consent, Suits Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KRISTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-06054 (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2025) alleges that the
Defendant knowingly, and willfully employing and causing to be
employed certain recording equipment in order to record telephone
conversations with the Plaintiff without the knowledge or consent
of Plaintiff, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not discover, and
could not, discover through the exercise of reasonable diligence,
the fact that the Defendant was recording the phone calls between
Plaintiff and members of the California Class and Defendant without
their knowledge or consent.
The Plaintiff and the members of the Class have all suffered
irreparable harm as a result of the Defendant's unlawful and
wrongful conduct. Absent a class action, the Class will continue to
face the potential for irreparable harm.
Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. provides credit and accounts
receivables management services. The Company offers third party
accounts receivable management programs, cash flow early out,
account receivables billing programs, skip tracing solutions,
over-the-limit calls and reminders attorney network, and credit and
collections training solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
Ross Schmierer, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
david@kazlg.com
ross@kazlg.com
SUSSEX PUBLISHERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Section 631 Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denies the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 631 claim in the lawsuit styled
R.C., et al., Plaintiffs v. SUSSEX PUBLISHERS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-02609-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs R.C. and D.G. bring this putative class action against
Sussex Publishers, LLC, claiming it disclosed and mishandled their
private and medical information in violation of California law. The
Court previously denied in large part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, but it dismissed
the Plaintiff's California Penal Code Section 631 claim with leave
to amend. The Plaintiffs' third amended complaint ("TAC") realleges
this claim and the Defendant now moves to dismiss only this claim.
The Plaintiffs have sought to bring a Penal Code Section 631 claim
for aiding and abetting liability in every iteration of their
complaint. The Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Penal Code Section 631 claim in the first amended complaint
("FAC"), holding the FAC failed to sufficiently plead the "in
transit" element of that claim. The Plaintiffs' SAC realleged the
claim, but the Court dismissed again.
The Plaintiffs' TAC realleges this claim once more, and the
Defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds the Plaintiffs still do
not plausibly state a Section 631 claim.
Judge Corley finds that the Plaintiffs plausibly allege Google
intercepted communications while they were in transit to the
Defendant. Namely, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant's website
uses the "Google Analytics Javascript code" which, while the
Plaintiffs and Class members were and are interacting with the
Psychology Today website, Google, concurrently and in real time,
did and does intercept, read, and analyze user communications and
interpret the contents of those communications for Google
subsequently to use for its advertising and analytics purposes.
Google markets the real-time reporting capabilities of Google
Analytics and boasts that "Realtime reports" allow website hosts to
"monitor activity on your website as it happens." And Google states
"you can immediately and continuously monitor the effects that new
campaigns and site changes have on your traffic."
So, Judge Corley explains, although previously the Plaintiffs only
alleged Google Analytics viewed or read the code after it was sent
to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs now allege interception occurred
while the same is in transit.
Drawing inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, Judge Corley finds the
TAC plausibly pleads Google "reads, or attempts to read, or to
learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or
communication."
Because the Plaintiffs have plausibly pled Google "reads, or
attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any
message, report, or communication" while the same is "in transit,"
the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
California Penal Code Section 631 claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/664vvces from PacerMonitor.com.
* * *
Sussex Publishers has filed its Answer to the Third Amended
Complaint, denying the Plaintiffs' allegations. Sussex asserted
that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiffs' allegation that
they and the Class members "who visited the Psychology Today
website expected that their personal and sensitive medical
information . . . would be and remain private and confidential"
and, therefore, denies the allegation. Sussex also argued that
Plaintiffs' allegation that they and the Class members "had a
reasonable expectation that their interactions with and
communications through Psychology Today's website, which contained
personal and/or uniquely identifying information, would not be
shared with any third parties, let alone to undisclosed third
parties" is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Sussex denies the allegation.
Sussex also maintained it is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
Plaintiffs' allegation that “that Google views, reads, and uses,
and/or has the capability to use, the information shared by the
Psychology Today website not only to provide analytics services,
but also to maintain and improve Google's own services, develop new
analytics and marketing services, and measure the effectiveness of
advertising on Google's and its partners' sites and applications."
The company explained Google is precluded by its contract with
Sussex from "us[ing]. . . the information shared by the Psychology
Today website. . . to maintain and improve Google's own services,
develop new analytics and marketing services, and measure the
effectiveness of advertising on Google's and its partners' sites
and applications." As it relates to Sussex, the company said
Google Analytics merely provides Sussex with aggregated information
on Site traffic. Sussex said it is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
Plaintiffs' allegation that they and the Class Members "did not
consent to that undisclosed and inappropriate access, viewing, and
use of their private information, including individually
identifiable medical information" because Sussex (1) does not
collect individually identifiable medical information and,
therefore, (2) does not allow for the "inappropriate access,
viewing, and use" of such information.
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Becerra-Paez Appeals Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Diego Becerra-Paez has taken an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit from a district court order dismissing his
complaint against Syracuse University.
In the case captioned as DIEGO BECERRA-PAEZ, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SYRACUSE
UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:24-CV-698 (N.D.N.Y.),
Judge David N. Hurd of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York granted Syracuse University's motion
to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Judge Hurd also
dismissed the plaintiff's unjust enrichment and breach of contract
claim stating that "plaintiff's putative class action attempts to
raise the same claims previously dismissed by this court.
Plaintiff Diego Becerra-Paez brought this putative class action on
behalf of all similarly situated Syracuse University students for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment stemming from Syracuse
University's transition to remote online instruction during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Syracuse University is a private university located in Syracuse,
New York. The university offers both in-person and online
instruction, with students free to choose their preferred form of
instruction. Regardless of the manner of instruction, students must
pay both tuition and fees for the semester. Undergraduate tuition
for the Spring 2020 semester was approximately $26,105.00.
Becerra-Paez paid tuition for the Spring 2020 semester in addition
to certain mandatory fees including the student activity fee,
student co-curricular fee, and the health and wellness fee.
In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Syracuse
University shut down its campus and moved its instruction to a
remote platform for online-only learning. In-person instruction
remained fully remote for the remainder of the Spring 2020
semester. This meant that in addition to attending classes online,
students no longer had access to any of the on-campus facilities
such as the fitness centers and libraries. Other services such as
the health and wellness centers, bookstores, and grocery store were
still made available, though in a limited capacity.
This is not the first time Syracuse University has litigated the
issue of its COVID-19 response. In fact, defendant has defended at
least three actions brought by the same attorney in this District
since 2020. The court noted that the plaintiff's attorneys have
made a practice of filing, dismissing, and refiling these 'mad-libs
style' pleadings against the university.
In the most recent related case, Poston v. Syracuse University,
Judge Thomas J. McAvoy dismissed plaintiff's unjust enrichment
claim with prejudice and dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract
claim as to "student fees" without prejudice. Judge McAvoy
dismissed all but Poston's breach of contract claim as to fees, in
particular, the "recreational fees" contained in the student
co-curricular fee.
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
On September 13, 2024, Syracuse University moved to dismiss
Becerra-Paez's complaint pursuant to: (1) the doctrine of
law-of-the-case; and (2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Syracuse University argued that Judge McAvoy's dispositive rulings
in Poston v. Syracuse University should apply as law-of-the-case
here. In opposition, Becerra-Paez countered that the court is not
required to apply dispositive rulings in another case between
different parties as law of the case.
The court explained that law of the case is a judicially crafted
policy that expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to
reopen what has been decided" and is "driven by considerations of
fairness to the parties, judicial economy, and the social interest
in finality.
Upon review, the court adopted Judge McAvoy's dispositive rulings
in Poston as law of the case, noting that "plaintiff's case is
closely related to Poston" and "arises from the same transactions
or events and involves an identical set of facts as the Poston
litigation." The court found that "the Court's judicial resources
should not be exhausted adjudicating the same claims arising from
the same facts solely because they are brought by a new named
plaintiff.
Regarding the surviving breach of contract claim related to the
student co-curricular fee, the court departed from Judge McAvoy's
decision. The court noted that New York law recognizes an implied
contract between students and their universities but only "specific
promises" contained in those materials form the contract are
considered actionable terms of the contract.
The court found that plaintiff described a student fee that
supports, in part, such programs and services as recreational and
outdoor education but does not allege that this fee was assessed
purely for outdoor programs or purely on-campus, in-person
recreation. The court concluded that the plaintiff has not
identified a sufficiently specific promise by Syracuse University
and therefore has not stated a plausible claim for relief.
The court applied Judge McAvoy's dispositive rulings in Poston
dismissing plaintiff's unjust enrichment and breach of contract
claims as to fees.
A copy of the Court's order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=13pVSO
T & DS LUBE: Court Certifies Oilfield Workers Class in Lyles Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOHN LYLES, Plaintiff v. T & DS LUBE
DOCTORS LLC, and LUCAS DOWDY, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00728-SMD-KRS (D.N.M.), Judge Sarah M. Davenport of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification, and certifying a class of oilfield
workers.
The following collective is conditionally certified:
All oilfield workers who worked for T and Ds Lube Doctors
LLC and/or Lucas Dowdy anywhere in the state of New Mexico,
at any time from July 16, 2021, through the final
disposition of this matter and were paid a day rate but did
not receive overtime.
Plaintiff John Lyles worked in New Mexico for T & Ds Lube Doctors
as an oilfield pumper for approximately ten months. Defendant Lucas
Dowdy is the owner, founder, and president of T & Ds Lube Doctors.
The Plaintiff's job involved driving around the state to different
well-sites and servicing clients' equipment. The Defendants
classified the Plaintiff as an independent contractor (also known
as a 1099 contractor) and paid him a flat day rate.
According to the Plaintiff, he typically worked over 80 hours per
week and, in addition to his oilfield duties, was required to
attend company safety meetings on his days off without
compensation. He did not receive overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants improperly classified him
as an independent contractor because, in reality, the Defendants
exercised control over his daily tasks. As a result, the Plaintiff
alleges that he was not an "independent contractor"; he did not
earn a profit based on any business investment of his own,
determine his own hours, market his business or services, determine
pricing, or provide his own tools or equipment.
The Plaintiff alleges that these policies were not unique to him,
but that other oilfield workers classified as independent
contractors were "subject to the same or similar illegal pay
practices for similar work in the oilfield." Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that these independent contractors were also
illegally denied overtime compensation. The Plaintiff now seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act
and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff styles his NMMWA claim as a Rule 23 class action and
his FLSA claim as a collective action. The present motion is
limited to the Plaintiff's FLSA claim and his corollary demand for
conditional certification. The Defendants oppose conditional
certification in their response. The Plaintiff replied to these
contentions, as well as the Defendants' objections to the contents
of the proposed notice.
The Court finds that (i) the putative class members are similarly
situated; (ii) the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an unlawful,
uniform policy; and (iii) the size of the collective does not
prevent conditional certification.
Since the Court is granting the Plaintiff's request for conditional
certification, the Court addresses the appropriate form of notice.
The Court overrules the Defendant's objection to including
Defendant Dowdy in the proposed class. Judge Davenport opines that
if there are workers, who would identify as working for Defendant
Dowdy, rather than T & Ds, they should be given the opportunity to
join the collective.
The Court directs the Parties to submit within seven days of the
date of entry of this Order a single Joint Proposed Notice Packet
reflecting the stated changes and revised notice schedule.
The Defendants will have 14 days from the date of entry of this
Order to provide the Plaintiff with the names, current or last
known addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and dates of
employment for current and former oilfield workers fitting the
description of the conditionally certified class.
The Plaintiff's counsel will send by mail, e-mail, and text message
the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class
Members within 28 days of the date of entry of this Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5xb3bcv2 from PacerMonitor.com.
TEAK NEW: Hernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEAK NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03698 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.teaknewyork.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Teak New York Limited Liability Company provides furniture,
lighting, and home decor. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
TIGER MIST: J'Nae Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
-----------------------------------------------------
Kira J'Nae, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIGER MIST (US) LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05634-RA (D.N.J.,
July 8, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result
of the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing text messages.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in
telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. Through this action,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful
conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in
a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class
members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action
under the TCPA.
The Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with its
headquarters located in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
1515 NE 26th Street,
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Phone: 813-340-8838
Email: zane@jibraellaw.com
TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Guirgis Files Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trustees of Columbia
University in the City of New York. The case is styled as David
Guirgis, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Case No.
1:25-cv-05681-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York --
https://secretary.columbia.edu/directory -- operates as an
educational institution. The University offers undergraduate and
graduate degrees.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth R. Carroll, Esq.
COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP
3311 West Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23230
Phone: (804) 999-9999
Email: scarroll@hurtinva.com
UNIFIN INC: Yoder Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Ashley Yoder, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03504 (E.D. Pa., July 9, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Unifin, Inc. is a legitimate debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN PC
30 E Butler Ave.
Ambler, PA 19002
Phone: (267) 468-5374
Email: teamkimmel@creditlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses 2nd Amended Sobirjanov Suit v. ICE, DHS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KHOSHIMJON SOBIRJANOV, et al., Plaintiffs v.
BRIAN McSHANE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04129-PD (E.D.
Pa.), Judge Paul S. Diamond of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, without
prejudice.
Five Plaintiffs -- all "undocumented" immigrants -- bring this
Class Action Complaint against the Philadelphia Field Office
Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General. The Plaintiffs seek
class-wide declaratory relief and individual injunctive relief,
urging the illegality of their continued confinement.
Because such a declaration would necessarily imply the invalidity
of the Plaintiffs' confinement, Judge Diamond says it sounds only
in habeas. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief
is now moot.
As alleged, Plaintiffs Khoshimjon Sobirjanov, Jose Melvin Gonzalez,
Marat Muzafarov, Bakhtiyor Mavlonov, and Jorge Machuca Rivera
(foreign nationals in the United States) were granted protection
from removal by an immigration judge, who found credible their fear
of returning to their countries of origin.
The Plaintiffs had been held in the Western District of
Pennsylvania at ICE's Moshannon Valley Processing Center. As
alleged, this contravenes an ICE Policy that recommends, barring
exceptional circumstances, the release of immigrants, who have been
granted fear-based protection. The Policy can also afford the
Plaintiffs a "custody review" to determine whether there are
exceptional circumstances warranting their continued detention. The
Policy requires the director of the local ICE field office (here,
the Philadelphia Field Office) to make these individualized
determinations. As alleged, until they filed suit, the Plaintiffs
had not received an individualized custody review.
The Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint on Aug. 12, 2024, and
have twice amended. The Government moves to dismiss. The Plaintiffs
also move for class certification, which the Government opposes.
The Plaintiffs seek to proceed under the Administrative Procedure
Act and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause on their own
behalf and on behalf of a class of ICE detainees. They define the
proposed class as follows: "[A]ll persons who are or will be held
in civil immigration detention within the area of responsibility of
Philadelphia ICE after they have been granted asylum, withholding,
or CAT relief by an IJ." The Plaintiffs seek class-wide declaratory
relief, as well as injunctive relief for those Class
Representatives, who remain detained.
Judge Diamond notes it is apparent that the Plaintiffs' injunctive
relief claims are moot and that their requests for declaratory
relief must be brought in habeas.
The Plaintiffs seek a class-wide declaration that their continued
confinement without an individualized custody determination
violates the APA and the federal Constitution. Judge Diamond agrees
with the Government that the Plaintiffs, thus, seek to evade the
Supreme Court's 2022 holding that 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1)
"deprived the District Courts of jurisdiction to entertain
[undocumented immigrants'] requests for class-wide injunctive
relief," citing Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543, 546
(2022).
To evade Garland's foreclosure of injunctive relief, Judge Diamond
notes that the Plaintiffs variously define the relief they seek.
For example, in opposing the Motion to Dismiss, they deny that they
seek an injunction. Rather: the "Plaintiffs' prayer for relief asks
the Court to enter a declaratory judgment instructing ICE to comply
with its own policy."
Moreover, Judge Diamond opines, the Plaintiffs' characterization is
misleading because it is not what they actually request in their
prayer for relief, where they urge the Court to declare that the
continued detention of the Plaintiffs and class members violates
the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 706(2)(A) and/or
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
Although granting this request would not require the Court to
contravene Garland, because it is a challenge to the validity of
the Plaintiffs' confinement, Judge Diamond says it must be brought
in habeas, not under the APA.
The Parties have also stipulated that only Plaintiff Jose Melvin
Gonzalez remains in custody and is now being held in Batavia, New
York. Accordingly, Judge Diamond dismisses the lawsuit without
prejudice so that Gonzalez may seek relief in the district where he
is detained.
Barred from seeking class-wide injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs
ask the Court me to review the named Plaintiffs' custody under the
standard articulated in the ICE policy and order their release
under that standard, if appropriate. The Government urges that
because Mr. Gonzalez has already received the requested review, his
claim is moot. Judge Diamond agrees.
Four of the five individual Plaintiffs have been released from ICE
custody. The Plaintiff, who is still detained, has already received
the custody review that he demands. Accordingly, Judge Diamond
denies the Plaintiffs' injunctive relief claim as moot.
For reasons that are not apparent, Judge Diamond says the
Plaintiffs seek relief to which they are not entitled in a Court
without jurisdiction to hear them. In these circumstances, Judge
Diamond dismisses without prejudice so that they may seek relief in
the proper district.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2vs6w77b from PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/frz25s3f from PacerMonitor.com.
UNITED STATES: Watts Files APA Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Troy E. Meink,
Secretary of the Air Force, United States of America, in his
official capacity. The case is captioned as KATHLEEN L. WATTS, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
TROY E. MEINK, Secretary of the Air Force, United States of
America, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:25-cv-01093 (E.D.
Va., July 1, 2025).
The Plaintiffs bring this action under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) to address the failure of the Defendant, the Secretary of
the Air Force of the United States of America, acting by and
through the Department of the Air Force, to comply with applicable
law and U.S. Department of Defense regulations. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alec Winfield Farr, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
700 13th Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 434-1603
Facsimile: (202) 654-9957
Email: afarr@perkinscoie.com
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Asis Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Asis, Fowizyyah Goings, Jackie Ray, Joseph Totten and
Stephanie Vargason, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, THE RETIREMENT PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER RETIREMENT PROGRAM, and
JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 6:25-cv-06365 (W.D.N.Y., July 9, 2025), is
brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA"), against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include the
University of Rochester, the Board of Trustees of the University of
Rochester and its members during the Class Period ("Board") and the
Retirement Plan Committee of the University of Rochester Retirement
Program and its members during the Class Period ("Committee")
(collectively, the University, the Board, and the Committee, are
referred to as the "Defendants") for breaches of their fiduciary
duties.
To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes
strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and
other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the
interest of the participants and beneficiaries."
The Defendants caused the Plan to enter into an arrangement with
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association ("TIAA"), a party in
interest, under which TIAA received millions of dollars in exchange
for recordkeeping services rendered to the Plan. Defendants'
conduct was especially egregious given that TIAA received
additional income from certain of the Plan's investment
securities.
During the putative Class Period, Defendants, as the "fiduciaries"
of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the
duties owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other
participants of the Plan by engaging in prohibited transactions in
violation of the ERISA.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence, in violation of the ERISA. Their
actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost
the Plan and its participants millions of dollars.
Based on this conduct, Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants
for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count I), failure to
monitor fiduciaries (Count II), and violation of ERISA's prohibited
transactions (Count III), says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan.
University of Rochester is the sponsor of the Plan and a named
fiduciary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Cordello, Esq.
PULLANO & FARROW
401 Main Street
East Rochester, NY 14445
Phone: (585) 730-4773
Facsimile: (888) 971-3736
Email: ecordello@lawpf.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Maro, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Phone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
Email: markg@capozziadler.com
jamesm@capozziadler.com
VALNET INC: Maketa Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DASSAH MAKETA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VALNET INC. and VALNET U.S., INC.
d/b/a SCREENRANT.COM, Case No. 25CV121025, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on July 1, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:25-cv-05517-TSH to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act..
Valnet Inc. is a global digital publishing and media investment
company, doing business in California.
Valnet U.S., Inc., doing business as ScreenRant.com, is a digital
publishing and media investment company, with its principal place
of business in California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin E. Gaut, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 312-2000
Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
Email: keg@msk.com
WAKE COUNTY, NC: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order denying their motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled
Vanessa Aguilar Ayala, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wake County, North
Carolina, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00524-BO-KS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The Plaintiffs have filed this putative class action seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged failure to train
and supervise James Otis Perry, a certified nurse assistant
employed by Defendant Wake County in its prenatal clinics,
following Perry's surreptitious recording of countless women
without their permission during their medical appointments.
On Nov. 12, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which Judge Terrence W. Boyle denied on
May 28, 2025.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient at
this early stage, and it will permit the Plaintiffs' Section 1983
claim against Wake County for failure to train Perry to proceed.
For the same reasons, the Court will permit the Plaintiffs' Section
1983 claim against Wake County for failure to train the supervisor
defendants to proceed as well.
The appellate case is entitled Vanessa Ayala v. Wake County, North
Carolina, Case No. 25-1738, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 1, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees VANESSA AGUILAR AYALA, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Kristen Lin Beightol, Esq.
Catharine E. Edwards, Esq.
Nicholas Hartigan, Esq.
EDWARDS BEIGHTOL LLC
P.O. Box 6759
Raleigh, NC 27628
Telephone: (919) 636-5100
Defendants-Appellants WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, et al. are
represented by:
Roger Allen Askew, Esq.
Macy B. Fisher, Esq.
Jennifer McGuire Jones, Esq.
Patrick Joseph Scott, Esq.
WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
P.O. Box 550
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: (919) 856-5500
- and -
Sydney Plummer Davis, Esq.
James Nicholas Ellis, Esq.
POYNER SPRUILL LLP
P.O. Box 353
Rocky Mount, NC 27802
Telephone: (252) 972-7113
- and -
Patrick Houghton Flanagan, Esq.
Samantha M. Owens, Esq.
CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP
P.O. Box 30787
Charlotte, NC 28230
Telephone: (704) 940-3419
WAKEMED HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Fund, Tillery Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEANETTE TILLERY, individually, and as a representative of a class
of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the WakeMed
Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff v. WAKEMED HEALTH & HOSPITALS;
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WAKEMED; THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF
WAKEMED; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No.
5:25-cv-00408-D (E.D. Cal., July 10, 2025) alleges violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants violated
ERISA from their choice to use Plan participant forfeited funds to
reduce Company contributions to the Plan instead of using the funds
to reduce or eliminate the amounts charged to Plan participants for
administrative and recordkeeping services and Defendants' failure
to promptly exhaust millions of dollars of forfeitures. These
choices by the Defendants cost Plan participants millions of
dollars during the Class Period, says the Plaintiff.
WakeMed Health & Hospital provides healthcares services. The
Hospital offers cancer treatment, heart and vascular,
neurosciences, orthopaedics, transplant, trauma care, breast
imaging, dentistry, digestive and mental health, radiology, and
rehabilitation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Alexander Rudenco, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Email: arudenco@milberg.com
- and -
Gabriel Mandler, Esq.
Omer Kremer, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW
20900 NE 30th
Ave Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Email: gabriel@edelsberglaw.com
omer@edelsberglaw.com
WALGREEN CO: Hicks Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Shaun Hicks, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., a Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2502522 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on July 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01725.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring this action as a putative class action
under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Here, removal based on Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA") diversity jurisdiction is proper pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1441, 1446, and 1453 because the aggregate number
of putative class members is 100 or greater; diversity of
citizenship exists between one or more Plaintiff and one or more
Defendants; and the amount placed in controversy by the Complaint
exceeds, in the aggregate, $5 million, exclusive of interests and
costs.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Max Fischer, Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
Anahi Cruz, Esq.
Ilana Gomez, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com
ilana.gomez@morganlewis.com
WESTERN ASSET: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
"Western Asset US Core Bond Fund" mutual fund classes -- Class I
(ticker:"WATFX"), Class A (ticker:"WABAX"), Class C
(ticker:"WABCX"), Class FI (ticker:"WAPIX"), Class IS
(ticker:"WACSX"), and Class R (ticker:"WABRX") -- and the "Western
Asset Core Plus Bond Fund" mutual fund classes -- Class A
(ticker:"WAPAX"), Class C (ticker:"WAPCX"), Class C1
(ticker:"LWCPX"), Class FI (ticker:"WACIX"), Class R
(ticker:"WAPRX"), Class I (ticker:"WACPX"), Class IS
(ticker:"WAPSX") between January 1, 2021 and October 31, 2023,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than September 5, 2025.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Western Asset mutual funds during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Western Asset class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit--form/?case_id=31956 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. at 866--767--3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for more
information. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than September 5, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class
Period, defendants failed to warn investors that: (1) Defendants
favored certain WAMCO strategies, like Macro Opps, over other WAMCO
strategies, like Core and Core Plus; (2) Defendants disfavored
certain WAMCO strategies, like Core and Core Plus; (3) any
"compliance policies and procedures" that WAMCO maintained "to
result in fair allocations of investment opportunities to clients"
were either insufficient to ensure that Leech and his WAMCO Team
fairly allocated trades among the strategies they managed or were
expressly disregarded by defendants in order to allow the favoring
of certain WAMCO strategies at the expense of other WAMCO
strategies; (3) any "oversight mechanisms" that WAMCO maintained
were either insufficient to monitor Leech and his WAMCO Team or
were expressly disregarded by Defendants in order to allow the
favoring of certain WAMCO strategies at the expense of other WAMCO
strategies. As a result, defendants' actions operated as a fraud or
deceit on the Class, artificially reducing the price of the
"Western Asset US Core strategy" mutual fund classes during the
Class Period, damaging Class members.
To join the Western Asset class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit--form/?case_id=31956 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. at 866--767--3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for more
information.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
WHITEPAGES INC: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Clark Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ROBERT CLARK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHITEPAGES, INC, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00810-TL (W.D.
Wash.), Whitepages Inc. has filed a series of motions asking Judge
Tana Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, to:
1. dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a
claim;
2. strike class allegations in the First Amended Complaint;
and
3. stay discovery.
Judge Lin previously struck as moot the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the original complaint and motion to strike class
allegations.
The Plaintiff filed a First Amendment Complaint (FAC) within the
time allowed for amendment as a matter of course. When a plaintiff
amends a complaint, it supersedes and completely replaces the
original complaint. As such, the Parties agree here that the FAC
renders moot the Defendant's pending motions to dismiss and to
strike class allegations. The Court will strike these motions, and
the Defendant may file new motions based on the now-operative
complaint.
For the briefing on these motions, and on the Defendant's
anticipated special motion for expedited relief pursuant to
Washington's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, RCW 4.105 et
seq. ("UPEPA Motion"), the Parties have agreed on a briefing
schedule.
Under Local Civil Rule 7(d), default briefing schedules may be
modified by Court order. Judge Lin notes that there has not been a
scheduling order entered in this case, so no other deadlines will
be affected by the requested modification. The Court finds there is
good cause to adopt the briefing schedule proposed by the parties.
The Parties' stipulated motion did not address the effect of the
FAC on the Defendant's pending motion to stay. That motion is also
now moot, Judge Lin says, as its only prayer for relief is that the
Court "stay all deadlines related to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and
discovery pending resolution of Whitepages's Motion to Dismiss and
Motion to Strike, filed contemporaneously with this Motion to Stay,
as well as the upcoming UPEPA motion" then planned for June 19,
2025. The justifications asserted for the stay are largely based on
the nature of the pending motions and expected UPEPA motion, as
well. But those motions, all based on the superceded original
complaint, are now moot.
While the Court has every reason to expect that the Defendant will
re-file its motions and file a UPEPA motion as it intends, the
Court will not order a stay predicated on the adjudication of
motions that do not yet exist. The motion to stay will, thus, be
stricken as moot, with leave to refile as appropriate.
The Court adopts the Parties' agreed-upon briefing schedule for the
motion to dismiss the FAC, motion to strike class allegations, and
UPEPA motion. The Plaintiff will file any opposition briefs by Aug.
13, 2025, and the Defendant will file any replies by Aug. 27,
2025.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5hdy2m5f from PacerMonitor.com.
XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Alvrus Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
James Alvrus, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE, LP f/k/a NEXTERA ENERGY PARTNERS,
LP, JOHN W. KETCHUM, BRIAN W. BOLSTER, TERRELL KIRK CREWS II, and
NEXTERA ENERGY, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01755-JLS-DDL (S.D. Cal.,
July 9, 2025), is brought as a federal securities class action on
behalf of the Class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired XPLR common
units between September 27, 2023 and January 27, 2025, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against XPLR,
its controlling company, and certain of its executives.
Throughout the Class Period, XPLR operated as a "yieldco"—that
is, a business that owns and operates fully-built and operational
power generating projects, focused on delivering large cash
distributions to investors. Yieldcos are similar to the master
limited partnership (MLP) structure used in the oil and gas
industry and to the real estate investment trusts (REIT) used in
the real estate industry.
Following the failures or reorganizations of other high-profile
yieldcos beginning in 2015, XPLR was one of the last remaining
yieldcos on the market. Indeed, XPLR maintained its yieldco
business model while championing its ability to do so, consistently
increasing the amount of its cash distributions to investors. But
XPLR eventually faced the same pressures as its competitors and in
September 2023, reduced its target growth rate of its unitholder
cash distributions.
XPLR told its investors that these reforms would place it on firm
financial footing, that it would continue to increase its cash
distributions at a targeted rate of 6% per year, and that those
increases were secure through at least 2026, given that XPLR had
sufficient capital to resolve certain financing obligations through
2025 and would not require additional equity until 2027. XPLR
reiterated throughout the Class Period that its targeted unitholder
distribution growth rate of 6% would continue through at least 2026
and that it had taken the necessary steps to ensure the viability
of its yieldco model through at least that date.
Unfortunately for investors, however, Defendants' repeated
assurances that XPLR would continue to increase its distributions
to shareholders and maintain the yieldco model were false and
misleading. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: XPLR was struggling to
maintain its operations as a yieldco; Defendants temporarily
relieved this issue by entering into certain financing
arrangements, while downplaying the attendant risks; XPLR could not
resolve those financings before their maturity date without risking
significant unitholder dilution; as a result, Defendants planned to
halt cash distributions to investors and instead redirect those
funds to, inter alia, resolve those financings; as a result of all
the foregoing, XPLR's yieldco business model and distribution
growth rate was unsustainable; and as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired XPLR units at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period.
XPLR acquires, owns, and manages contracted clean energy projects
in the United States, including a portfolio of contracted wind and
solar power projects, as well as a natural gas pipeline.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-233-4565
Facsimile: 619-233-0508
Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
ZENITH ELECTRONICS: Kalampoukas Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zenith Electronics
LLC. The case is styled as Lampros Kalampoukas, and all others
similarly situated v. Zenith Electronics LLC, Case No.
2025-0784-NAC (Del. Chancery Ct., July 8, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Civil Action."
Zenith Electronics LLC -- https://zenith.com/ -- is a leading US
technology development and licensing company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley R. Aronstam, Esq.
Richard Garrett Rice, Esq.
Holly Newell, Esq.
William M. Lafferty, Esq.
Ryan D. Stottmann, Esq.
Lauren K. Neal, Esq.
Alec F. Hoeschel, Esq.
Phil Reytan, Esq.
Anneliese Ostrom, Esq.
Phone: (302) 528-1199
Fax: (302) 576-1100
ZETA GLOBAL: Ayerdi Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
DIANE AYERDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZETA GLOBAL HOLDINGS CORP.; and DOTDASH
MEREDITH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05780 (S.D.N.Y., July
14, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all
California residents who subscribed to an email newsletter that
included Zeta's LiveIntent tracking pixels and click trackers (the
"Class" and "Class Members") and all California residents who were
sent such newsletters by the Defendant Dotdash Meredith (the
"Dotdash Subclass" and "Subclass Members").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Zeta has violated
state and federal law by harvesting personal data without consent
via client newsletter sign-ups, secretly tracking consumers using
its LiveIntent tracking pixel; disclosing personal data to
advertisers without informed consent through its LiveIntent
real-time bidding process; falsely claiming that it does not sell
data; falsely claiming that its consumer data is rendered
"privacy-safe" by hashing; matching disparate data sources to
create privacy-invasive intent-based signals and sharing such data
without informed consent, and using the Zeta ID, LiveIntent ID, and
other persistent unique identifiers to build identity dossiers to
know and track individuals across all advertising channels and
sell, disclose, and redistribute their data to third and fourth
parties without informed consent.
Zeta shares, sells, or otherwise discloses personal data and
behavioral profiles to its clients and third parties for
advertising, marketing, and analytics purposes without first
obtaining informed consent of the individuals whose data it
collects, says the suit.
Zeta Global Holdings Corp. operates as a software company. The
Company develops omnichannel data-driven cloud platform that
provides enterprises with consumer intelligence and marketing
automation software. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Reuben A. Aguirre, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
raguirre@masonllp.com
ZETA GLOBAL: Faces A.P. Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
A.P., R.E.A., and K.G., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZETA GLOBAL CORPORATION; and ZETA
GLOBAL HOLDINGS, CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05823
(S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2025) alleges violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act and the New York's General Business Law.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants
claimed that all data they collected was done so using a system of
opt-in mechanisms. This means that, the Defendant wanted the public
to believe that the sensitive information they had harvested on
nearly every single American with internet access was given to the
Defendant with permission.
The Defendant used their technology to make unauthorized
connections with the lines of communication and instruments used by
the Plaintiffs and Class members to access online services without
the consent of all parties to those communications. The Defendant
willfully, and without consent, read, or attempted to read, or
learn the contents and meaning of the Plaintiffs and Class members
communications with online services while those communications were
in transit or passing over a wire, line, or cable, or were being
sent or received within California through its tracking technology,
as described herein. This interception happens prior to or at the
same time that they would be received by the intended recipient.
Additionally, the Defendant used and attempted to use these
identifiable, private communications without consent for its own
benefit, including for targeted advertising, says the suit.
Zeta Global Corp. designs and develops enterprise software. The
Company offers CRM, customer acquisition, strategic managed
services, and private data cloud solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON
40 Exchange Place, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (929) 709-1493
Facsimile: (973) 232-0887
Email: byagman@shnlegal.com
mclerkin@shnlegal.com
- and -
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 110
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
- and -
Israel David, Esq.
ISRAEL DAVID LLC
60 Broad Street, Suite 2900
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 350-8850
Facsimile: (212) 350-8860
Email: israel.david@davidllc.com
[] Europe's Privacy Groups Take on Big Tech With Breach Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen O'Regan, writing for Politico reports that Europe's powerful
privacy activists are wielding a sharp new legal tool that, if
successful, could see the cost of privacy breaches balloon into the
billions for Big Tech.
European consumers in recent years have seen a law take effect that
allows them to club together to look for compensation for damages
caused by companies. Armed with Europe's blockbuster privacy law,
the General Data Protection Regulation, internet users -- often
represented by savvy digital rights groups -- are now gunning for
big payouts.
The European Union has had a Collective Redress Directive in force
since 2020, designed in the wake of the Volkswagen emissions
scandal to better protect large groups of consumers from suffering
the same harm, and to collectively look for compensation. One of
the laws the directive can help enforce is the GDPR.
Already, Dutch non-profit SOMI has launched collective redress
actions against TikTok and Meta; the Irish Council for Civil
Liberties has lodged one against Microsoft; and Austrian privacy
group Noyb is preparing to launch its first action against credit
ratings agency CRIF.
Privacy groups see "a lot of potential" in collective redress as a
new avenue, especially for GDPR breaches by Big Tech, said Ursula
Pachl, who last year took on the role of spearheading collective
redress actions at Noyb -- one of Europe's most prolific privacy
watchdogs -- after more than a decade working at powerful Brussels
consumer lobby association BEUC.
"Enforcement has always been the Achilles heel of the European
Union, particularly in regards to consumer protection," Pachl
said.
The GDPR in particular lends itself well to collective action
because "everybody in Europe probably suffers from the same illegal
behavior if there is a Big Tech company who does something which
doesn't respect the GDPR," she said.
Guillaume Couneson, a data protection lawyer with the firm
Linklaters, said that when a breach is confirmed by a data
protection authority, collective redress actions could "immediately
[pop] up like mushrooms."
Multiplying fines
A recent landmark court case highlighted just how much collective
redress actions could sting tech firms and others alike.
A judge at the EU's General Court ruled in January that a
complainant, Thomas Bindl, was entitled to damages when he was
faced with "some uncertainty" about what happened to his data.
Bindl's case rested on his having clicked a "Sign in with Facebook"
hyperlink displayed on a European Commission webpage.
The judge ruled Bindl was owed €400 in damages -- a judgement
that was quickly seen as setting the bar for compensation for a
single breach of the GDPR.
Couneson said the case "surprised many by the height of the
damages" and had raised immediate concerns for businesses about the
multiplier effect of what happens if "it’s a million people
claiming €400."
That's a daunting prospect for Big Tech firms, especially if such
class action cases take off in Europe, where the tech sector has
faced much heavier regulatory scrutiny and court losses than in the
United States.
Class actions are predominantly a phenomenon of the U.S. legal
system, where they are seen as a way to relieve courts of many
similar cases and for consumers to get compensation in a more
cost-effective way.
But the U.S. system has also led to court cases driven by
opportunistic litigation, with lawyers actively rallying plaintiffs
to bring forward a case in order to take a cut of the winnings.
Countries like the Netherlands and Belgium have long traditions of
collective action for consumers, while in other EU countries legal
routes have been limited or don't exist. But before the directive,
legal avenues to take consumer group actions were "quite patchy"
across the EU, said Florence Danis, also a lawyer at Linklaters.
The first article of the EU directive on collective redress says it
will put in place "appropriate safeguards to avoid abusive
litigation." The power to take up cases is granted only to
not-for-profit, independent, consumer-focused organizations, while
EU countries are required to create a legal route for these
"qualified entities."
According to Karen Shin, a California-based privacy lawyer at law
firm Blank Rome, non-profits might be less inclined to take genuine
cases due to the costs they could trigger. In many EU countries as
well as in the United Kingdom, the losing side of a court case pays
for attorney’s fees and costs, which "may limit the usage of
class actions in the EU," she said.
New privacy battlegrounds
Enforcement of the GDPR was designed to be the domain of national
data protection authorities across the EU. Because the principle of
a "one-stop shop" regulator was built into the law, most of the
landmark privacy cases have fallen into the hands of Ireland's
chief regulator, the Irish Data Protection Commission.
Charged with regulating the many Big Tech companies headquartered
in the country, the Irish regulator has handed down most of the
biggest fines in the history of the GDPR, including the €1.2
billion against Meta over data transfers to the U.S. and the €530
million against TikTok relating to Chinese data transfers.
But those fines took years to decide. For years, civil society and
other data protection regulators were left frustrated over
perceived inaction by the Irish DPC. Noyb has repeatedly criticized
the Irish regulator over what it describes as tardy or lenient
enforcement against Big Tech.
A 2023 report from the Irish Council of Civil Liberties estimated
that 67 percent of the Irish DPC's EU-level investigations had been
overruled by a majority of its European counterparts demanding
tougher enforcement action.
Ireland has also thrown up barriers to the use of collective
action, through both centuries-old laws and its implementation of
the new directive.
The country's legal system prohibits third-party funding of
collective actions, harking back to old laws from as early as the
14th century that were reaffirmed by the Irish Supreme Court in
2017. Ireland has also limited contributions from consumers to
collective cases at €25 per person.
This is something that Noyb, a familiar presence in Irish courts,
has raised as a concern with the European Commission, arguing it
infringes on the EU directive. EU countries "[have] a positive
obligation to make sure that financially it's not an obstacle" to
start collective action cases, Pachl said.
Ireland will still be an "obvious forum" for GDPR collective
redress actions, given that many Big Tech defendants are based
there, said Linklaters' Danis.
But, she added, consumers are not geographically bound by the
directive: "Even if you're an Irish plaintiff or representative,
you could go before the French court to claim damages to the
benefit of French consumers, for instance." [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 ***