251204.mbx

251204.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 4, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 242 Headlines AGENUS INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ARCHCARE COMMUNITY: "Bell" Plaintiffs OK'd to File 2nd Amended Suit BANCORP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware BELLINGHAM MARINE: Caballero Wage Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. BGC GROUP: Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Suit BGC GROUP: Delaware Court Dismisses "Siegel" BIOVIE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Nevada CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit in California CARGROUP HOLDINGS: Settlement Denied Over Opt-Out Confusion CENTURION OF DELAWARE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Brown" CERES CLASSIC: 2d Cir. Affirms Class Certification in VRDO Suit CERES CLASSIC: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Gilts Price Suit CERES CLASSIC: Deal in Interest Rate Swaps Suit Has Final OK CERES CLASSIC: Settlement in Suit vs. Viacom Has Final Approval CHEGG INC: Settlement in "Leventhal" Has Final Court Approval ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH: Faces Barpar Securities Suit ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH: Saffron Capital Appeals Dismissal of Suit EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT: "Francisco" Class Conditionally Certified HRB DIGITAL: Cutar Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. HYP LLC: Cermeno ADA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. MEADOWVALE INC: Mismanages Retirement Funds, Leslie Alleges ONLINE INFORMATION: Coulter FCRA Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.C. STATE FARM: Broiles Fraud Suit Removed to W.D. Okla. SYRACUSE HAULERS: Fact Discovery in Sims Due March 20, 2026 TPUSA INC: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to Dec. 12 WUNDERKIND CORP: Wine Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ********* AGENUS INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Agenus Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the putative securities class action lawsuit remains pending in a Massachusetts court. In September 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned In re Agenus Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-12299, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court") against the Company and certain of its executives and directors. The Court appointed a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2025. The amended complaint alleges that Agenus, three of its current officers, and one member of its advisory board violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact related to the efficacy and commercial prospects of botensilimab and balstilimab. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Agenus securities between January 23, 2023, and July 17, 2024, and seeks damages and interest, and an award of costs, including attorneys' fees. On April 8, 2025, the Company moved to dismiss the securities class action. On June 6, 2025 plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on July 7, 2025, the Company filed its reply brief. As of the date of this filing, the Company's motion to dismiss is pending before the court. "We are unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse decision in this action," the Company stated. ARCHCARE COMMUNITY: "Bell" Plaintiffs OK'd to File 2nd Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Constance Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ArchCare Community Services, Inc., et al., Defendants, 24 CV 1877 (NCM) (CLP), United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff Constance Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, commenced this action against Defendant ArchCare Community Services, Inc., and Carmel Richmond Nursing Home, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and New York Labor Law Sections 190 et seq., 650 et seq., and 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Sections 142-2.1 and 142-2.2, based on the Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime. On May 28, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff alleged that she was employed as a Nurse Aide Trainee by the Defendant at the Carmel facility from approximately December 13, 2021, through May 2022, earning $15.00 per hour as an Hourly Employee. Throughout her employment, she was scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., which included an automatic 30-minute deduction per day for a meal break. The Plaintiff alleged that on numerous occasions during her employment, she was scheduled to work at least 40 hours per week, inclusive of her automatically deducted meal break. She routinely worked during her uncompensated meal breaks, as well as before and after her scheduled shifts, and was not properly compensated for all hours worked, including overtime at the applicable rate. She routinely performed 5 to 10 minutes of essential work before the start of her scheduled shift, and 5 to 15 minutes after the end of her scheduled shift, resulting in at least 10 to 30 minutes of uncompensated work. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant employs over 1,000 Hourly Employees at their various health care facilities. When the Defendant hired the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees, the Defendant promised to pay hourly wages for all hours worked. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has engaged in illegal and improper wage practices and policies, including improperly penalizing Hourly Employees by configuring the time clocks in the Defendant's facilities to round down and artificially reduce the amount of time Hourly Employees are credited with performing, and automatically deducting time for meal breaks when Hourly Employees are performing work during that time, depriving Hourly Employees of their wages and overtime pay. The Plaintiff sought to add Mary Manning Walsh as a defendant, to add as additional defendants Catholic Health Care Systems d/b/a ArchCare, and Providence Health Services, the corporate parents of Carmel Richmond and Mary Manning Walsh, and to remove ArchCare Community Services, Inc. as a defendant. The proposed Second Amended Complaint adds factual allegations relating to the joint employer status of the Defendant and the proposed class, as well as allegations relating to opt-in plaintiff Olonimoyo. The Defendant opposed the filing of the proposed Second Amended Complaint, arguing that the amendments are futile because the Plaintiff lacks both standing to sue and is plainly an inadequate representative of a class of employees who worked for different employers, under different policies and different collective bargaining agreements. The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff was never employed by the other subsidiaries she now attempts to name and that the Plaintiff is attempting to enlarge the putative class despite the fact that she has no standing to bring claims on behalf of individuals with whom she had no employment relationship or meaningful interaction. The Defendant further argued that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that Carmel Richmond operated under a uniform policy or pay structure shared by the alleged affiliated subsidiaries. The Court explained that different standards apply when considering whether a proposed pleading amendment is sufficient under Rule 15(a) and whether the requirements necessary to certify a class under Rule 23 have been met. The Court accepts as true the facts alleged by the moving party and determines whether there are sufficient facts alleged to state a plausible claim on its face. The Plaintiff has not yet moved for class certification and is simply required at this stage to provide sufficient factual allegations that, accepted as true, state a plausible claim for relief. The Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff's conclusory anecdotes of illegal conduct are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of commonality and typicality is premature, and more appropriately raised in opposition to any subsequent motion for class certification. The proposed Second Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts, assumed to be true, that the various named defendants and corporate entities operate as joint employers or as a single integrated enterprise. The Plaintiff, in alleging that ArchCare and Providence are under common ownership and exercise control over Carmel Richmond, Mary Manning Walsh, and other facilities, cites to ArchCare's website referring to the facilities as part of ArchCare, and to IRS tax filings indicating that ArchCare is the direct controlling entity of the various facilities and that Providence is the sole member of ArchCare. The Plaintiff further alleges that ArchCare and Providence control the operations of the facilities, and subjected the other employees at the facilities to substantially similar wage policies and practices as the Plaintiff. The Court found that the statute of limitations had not expired at the time the Plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add new defendants and correct the name of ArchCare. The Plaintiff commenced this action on March 13, 2024, alleging claims under the three-year statute of limitations for willful violations of the FLSA, and claims under the six-year statute of limitations for the NYLL. The proposed amendments were timely filed and relate back to the date of the initial Complaint. The Court concluded that any delay or increase in discovery as a result of the amended pleadings will not result in undue prejudice to the Defendant sufficient to warrant denial of the Motion to amend. Discovery is ongoing; no motion for class or collective certification has yet been filed and no trial date has been set. Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion to amend and authorized the filing of the proposed Second Amended Complaint. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TjZKEv From PacerMonitor.com BANCORP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ The Bancorp, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative securities class action lawsuit pending in a Delaware court. On March 14, 2025, Nathan Linden filed a putative securities class action complaint captioned Nathan Linden v. The Bancorp, Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and purports to assert a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between January 25, 2024 and March 4, 2025. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false statements and omissions about the Company's business, prospects, and operations, with a focus on the Company's commercial real estate bridge loan portfolio and related provision for credit losses. The named plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. On September 29, 2025, the court appointed Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority as lead plaintiff; the case is now captioned Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. The Bancorp, Inc. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the complaint. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or operations. BELLINGHAM MARINE: Caballero Wage Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ANGEL CABALLERO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELLINGHAM MARINE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Washington Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CU25-08556, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03399-SCR to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts the following nine causes of action on behalf of himself and all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final judgment: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (2) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks, (3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages, (5) Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Separation, (6) Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements, (7) Failure to Reimburse All Necessary, Business-Related Expenses, (8) Failure to Keep and Maintain Required Records, and (9) Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Bellingham Marine Industries, Inc. is the largest marina builder in the world.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joanna MacMillan, Esq. Nicolas Tomas, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-909-7775 Facsimile: 424-465-6630 E-mail: jmacmillan@constangy.com ntomas@constangy.com BGC GROUP: Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Suit ------------------------------------------------------ BGC Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the purported class action lawsuit alleging breach of contract. "On March 9, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed against Cantor, BGC Holdings, and Newmark Holdings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00265). The collective action, which was filed by seven former limited partners of the defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated limited partners, alleges a claim for breach of contract against all defendants on the basis that the defendants failed to make payments due under the relevant partnership agreements. "Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions upon which the defendants relied to deny payment are unenforceable under Delaware law. The plaintiffs allege a second claim against Cantor and BGC Holdings for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act on the basis that the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements constitute unreasonable restraints of trade. In that regard, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions of the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements, as well as restrictive covenants included in partner separation agreements, cause anticompetitive effects in the labor market, insulate Cantor and BGC Holdings from competition, and limit innovation. The plaintiffs seek a determination that the case may be maintained as a class action, an injunction prohibiting the allegedly anticompetitive conduct, and monetary damages of at least $5.0 million. On April 28, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On July 14, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint in March 2024. On December 2, 2024, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On December 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, followed by full briefing by the parties. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument on September 17, 2025 after which it took the matter under submission. "We believe the lawsuit has no merit. However, as with any litigation, the outcome cannot be determined with certainty," the Company stated. BGC GROUP: Delaware Court Dismisses "Siegel" -------------------------------------------- BGC Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a Delaware court dismissed the putative class action lawsuit captioned Martin J. Siegel v. Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, C.A. 2024-0146-LWW. On February 16, 2024, an alleged Company stockholder, Martin J. Siegel, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. and Mr. Howard W. Lutnick in the Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting that the Corporate Conversion was unfair to Class A stockholders of BGC Partners, Inc. because it increased Cantor's percentage voting control over the Company. The suit is captioned Martin J. Siegel v. Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, C.A. 2024-0146-LWW. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on April 22, 2024. The motion was argued at a hearing on January 9, 2025. On April 10, 2025, the court issued its decision dismissing the complaint in full on the grounds that the plaintiff's claim is derivative in nature and the plaintiff failed to make a demand on the Board or plead that such a demand was futile. Plaintiff did not appeal the court's ruling and the judgment dismissing the matter is now final. BIOVIE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Nevada --------------------------------------------------------- Biovie Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a shareholder class action lawsuit pending in a Nevada court. On January 19, 2024, a purported securities class action complaint, captioned Eric Olmstead v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-00035, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On February 22, 2024, a second, related putative securities class action was filed in the same court asserting similar claims against the same defendants, captioned Way v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00361. On April 15, 2024, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption In re BioVie Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:24-cv-00035, appointed the lead plaintiff, and approved selection of the lead counsel. On June 21, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the Company's business, operations, compliance, and prospects, including information related to the NM101 Phase 3 study and trial of bezisterim (NE3107) in mild to moderate probable AD, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class action is on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from December 7, 2022 through November 28, 2023, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2024, and that motion was fully briefed as of December 5, 2024. On March 27, 2025, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the parties are now engaged in fact discovery. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome. CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------- Capricor Therapeutics, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on July 17, 2025 a putative securities class action was filed in the Southern District of California, naming Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. and its chief executive officer, Linda Marban. The action alleges certain violations of the U.S. federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages. CARGROUP HOLDINGS: Settlement Denied Over Opt-Out Confusion ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Megan Steahle, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CarGroup Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-1447 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied without prejudice the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Revised Class Action Settlement. The action was brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Defendant for alleged overtime violations of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq (Count I). Plaintiff also alleged a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action claiming violation of wage provisions under Missouri Minimum Wage Laws, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 290.500 et seq (Count II). Following a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Arteaga, the Parties settled both Counts. Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement for Counts I and II, which was later amended on October 24, 2025. The Court found it could not preliminarily approve the proposed revised Settlement because the relief was not adequate under Rule 23(e)(2). The proposed revised Settlement (1) was impermissibly proceeding solely on an opt-out basis and did not provide for an opt-in procedure under the FLSA; (2) did not address how the Settlement proceeds would be split between the FLSA claims and the state law class action claims; and (3) despite Plaintiff's assertions, was not in accordance with Lundeen v. 10 W. Ferry St. Operations LLC, 156 F.4th 332 (3d Cir. 2025). On November 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for FLSA Conditional Certification and Notice to the Putative Collective, which was fully briefed in January 2025. On March 21, 2025, the Court granted in part Plaintiff's Motion, conditionally certifying the proposed nationwide collective claim. On February 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Shortly thereafter, the Parties agreed to mediate this matter. The Parties stayed summary judgment briefing, as well as notice to the putative collective class. On June 24, 2025, the Parties agreed to a proposed settlement. Pursuant to the Court's September 15, 2025, Order, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 22, 2025 that included the state law class claims for overtime wages. On October 6, 2025, the Court ordered the Parties to clarify in detail how the proposed settlement proceeds would be allocated under the FLSA collective action claims with opt-in plaintiffs, separately from the state law class claims with persons who can opt-out pursuant to Rule 23. The Court amended this Order on October 17, 2025, requiring the Parties to take into consideration the Third Circuit's recent precedential opinion in Lundeen, which held the FLSA's opt-in requirement in Section 216(b) does not forbid the release of unasserted FLSA claims in an opt-out Rule 23 class action settlement. The Settlement Class comprised all persons who worked as Territorial Sales Representatives, Branch Managers, Senior Branch Managers, Assistant Area Managers, and Mobile Sales Representatives for CarGroup Holdings, LLC, d/b/a www.WeBuyAnyCar.com, including any persons who performed the same job duties as any of these positions under a different title, at any time from April 8, 2021, through December 31, 2024, or for those employed in the State of New Jersey at any time from August 6, 2019 through December 31, 2024, or for those employed in the State of Kentucky at any time from April 8, 2019 through December 31, 2024. The class was comprised of 786 unique employees, covering 22 states. According to the Court: The Settlement would create an $8,500,000 non-reversionary Total Settlement Fund to pay Class Members their pro-rata share of the Net Settlement Amount, after payment of attorneys' fees and costs approved by the Court, and Service Awards for Plaintiff Steahle and Plaintiff Deponents. This represented a recovery of nearly three (3) hours of overtime per workweek for each Class Member during their employment within the applicable statute of limitations period. The Court explained that proceeding solely on an opt-out basis for a hybrid action involving both FLSA and state law class action claims was impermissible, as it circumvented the FLSA's purpose. In Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp., the Third Circuit explicitly held that the plain language of Section 216(b) bars opt-out class actions to enforce the provisions of the FLSA. The Third Circuit further endorsed the use of hybrid actions, where a FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class action proceed together in the same case. The Court noted that the proposed revised Settlement and Release was proceeding solely on an opt-out basis and did not provide for an opt-in procedure. This was not permitted under the FLSA and was also not in accordance with Lundeen. Accordingly, the Court could not preliminarily approve the Settlement. The Court further explained it could not preliminarily approve the proposed revised Settlement because the Settlement did not address how the Settlement proceeds would be split between the FLSA claims and the state law class action claims, as Ordered by the Court on October 6, 2025. In Lundeen, the Third Circuit noted the proposed settlement would split the proceeds between all class members who had not opted out without requiring those class members to submit a claim form, and a separate additional pool of money was established for the individuals who had previously opted into the FLSA collective action. Therefore, for the Court to preliminarily approve the Settlement, the Settlement must address how the Settlement proceeds would be split between the FLSA claims and the state law class action claims. The Court clarified that in Lundeen, the Third Circuit held that the FLSA's opt-in requirement in Section 216(b) does not forbid the release of unasserted FLSA claims as part of an opt-out Rule 23 class action settlement. In other words, employees who did not opt in to the FLSA collective action (but had the opportunity to) and did not opt out of the Rule 23 class action may waive the right to assert FLSA claims related to the action in the future. Moreover, the settlement must still be fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court found that the proposed revised Settlement did not match the one in Lundeen, and the settlement terms were confusing and unclear. For employees who Do Nothing and for employees who do not opt-out of the Settlement, it was unclear whether those employees waive the right to bring FLSA claims in the future because the employee did not previously opt in to the FLSA collective action, but the employee also did not have an opportunity to opt in and assert such claims. According to Judge :Under the proposed revised Settlement and Release, it seemed that the default was that employees had not opted in to the FLSA collective action and thus would waive the right to assert FLSA claims in the future. But it was unclear as to which claims employees knowingly released, as some employees may not have had the opportunity to opt in to the FLSA collective action. Furthermore, the Settlement did not delineate the amount of funds for the FLSA collective action versus the Rule 23 class action, and which claims employees would receive payment for. The Court ordered that the Parties shall have 21 days to revise the proposed Settlement to address the Court's concerns. Furthermore, within 21 days, Plaintiff's Counsel shall submit to the Court a statement of hours worked on this case, along with a description of the work done. The court's decision dated November 25 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0zKxsQ from PacerMonitor.com CENTURION OF DELAWARE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Brown" --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jenail Brown, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Centurion of Delaware, LLC, Sheri L. McAfee-Garner, Emilia Adah, Charles Reinette, Flora A. Atangcho, Barbara Denkins, William F. Ngwa, and Feeah M. Stewart, Defendants, C.A. No. 22-923-JLH (D. Del.), Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and denied Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint on July 12, 2022, against multiple Defendants, including Centurion of Delaware, LLC, medical providers working for Centurion, and many others. On October 10, 2022, Centurion and the Individual Centurion Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams denied the motion to dismiss as to Centurion but dismissed the claims against the Individual Centurion Defendants. Judge Williams' Order explained that the Court had dismissed the claims against the Individual Centurion Defendants without prejudice and that Plaintiffs were given leave to amend to address the deficiencies. The case was reassigned to Judge Hall on January 8, 2024. On May 16, 2024, the Court dismissed the Individual State Defendants' motion to dismiss the original Complaint without prejudice to refile upon Plaintiffs' filing of an Amended Complaint. The Court set a deadline of May 30, 2024, for Plaintiffs to file their Amended Complaint, which was extended to July 1, 2024. The Court's May 16, 2024 Order further explained that Defendants were free to argue for dismissal of any or all of the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint except for the claim that has already survived a motion to dismiss - that is, the claim against Centurion. Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on July 3, 2024. It contains only two claims: a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim for damages against Centurion and a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim for damages against the Individual Centurion Defendants. No other defendants are named, and no equitable relief is sought. The allegations in the Amended Complaint pertaining to the Individual Centurion Defendants are identical to those in the original Complaint, which Judge Williams had dismissed as to the Individual Centurion Defendants. On August 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a letter stating that Plaintiffs recognize that Count II against the Individual Centurion Defendants was dismissed without prejudice in the Court's Memorandum Order of March 8, 2023. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend to restate Count II against the Individual Centurion Defendants but have chosen not to do so. Plaintiffs left the Individual Centurion Defendants in the Amended Complaint to preserve that appeal. Plaintiffs clarified they understand the Court's March 8, 2023 ruling and will not be pursuing claims against the Individual Centurion Defendants. The only Defendant against whom Plaintiffs will be pursuing a claim in the Amended Complaint is Centurion of Delaware, LLC. Accordingly, the claims against the Individual Centurion Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. The parties agreed that Plaintiff Frankie Galindez should be terminated as a named Plaintiff. The Court dismissed all claims brought by Plaintiff Galindez. The lone remaining claim is styled 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Deliberate Indifference to Health or Safety - Policy Implementation and Enforcement (Against Centurion of Delaware, LLC). This claim is identical to the claim asserted against Centurion in the original Complaint. Judge Williams previously denied Centurion's motion to dismiss it, and the Court's May 16, 2024 Order told Centurion that it should not refile a motion to dismiss the claim that already survived a motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2024, Centurion filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Centurion argued that reconsideration of Judge Williams' decision is warranted given plaintiffs' substantial reframing of its allegations. The Court disagreed, finding there has been no substantial reframing - the allegations against Centurion are identical to those in the original Complaint. Centurion's motion to dismiss is denied. Centurion also moved to strike Plaintiffs' class allegations. Motions to strike are generally disfavored before some discovery occurs unless the complaint clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff cannot meet the requirements for a class action. Centurion underscored the individualized nature of each Plaintiff's injury and suggested that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Court found that other common issues are clearly alleged in the Amended Complaint. As class certification is not facially impossible, the Court found this case does not represent one of the very rare instances where striking the class allegations is appropriate. The motion to strike is denied. The Court ordered an in-person initial case management conference on January 5, 2026. On or before December 19, 2025, the parties shall meet and confer and jointly prepare and file a proposed Scheduling Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O9yu4U from PacerMonitor.com CERES CLASSIC: 2d Cir. Affirms Class Certification in VRDO Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ceres Classic L.P. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the order granting class certification in the antitrust lawsuit relating to Variable Rate Demand Obligations ("VRDO"). The Company is a defendant in three antitrust class action complaints which have been consolidated into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the SDNY under the caption City of Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Company, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and relevant state laws in connection with alleged efforts to artificially inflate interest rates for Variable Rate Demand Obligations ("VRDO"). The consolidated complaint seeks, inter alia, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. The complaint was filed on behalf of a class of municipal issuers of VRDO for which defendants served as remarketing agent. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, dismissing state law claims, but denying dismissal of the U.S. antitrust claims. On September 21, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On February 5, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted leave to appeal that decision and, on August 1, 2025, affirmed the court's decision. CERES CLASSIC: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Gilts Price Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ceres Classic L.P. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting final court approval of the settlement entered into in the lawsuit alleging fixing of prices of gilts. On February 21, 2025, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority announced a settlement with an affiliate of the Company, as well as other financial institutions, in connection with its investigation of suspected anti-competitive arrangements in the financial services sector, specifically regarding the affiliate's activities concerning certain liquid fixed income products between 2009 and 2012. Separately, on June 16, 2023, the affiliate and the Company, together with a number of other financial institutions, were named as defendants in a purported antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the SDNY styled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, et al., alleging, inter alia, that they violated U.S. antitrust laws in connection with their alleged effort to fix prices of gilts traded in the United States between 2009 and 2013. The complaint seeks, inter alia, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On September 16, 2024, the court granted defendants' joint motion to dismiss, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. In October of 2024, the affiliate, the Company, and certain other defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the U.S. litigation. On March 17, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. CERES CLASSIC: Deal in Interest Rate Swaps Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------ Ceres Classic L.P. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a New York court has granted final approval of the settlement in the interest rate swaps antitrust lawsuit. Beginning in February of 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") styled In Re: Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Company, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. and New York state antitrust laws from 2008 through December of 2016 in connection with alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based platforms for interest rate swaps trading. Complaints were filed both on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased interest rate swaps from defendants, as well as on behalf of three operators of swap execution facilities that allegedly were thwarted by the defendants in their efforts to develop such platforms. The consolidated complaints seek, inter alia, certification of the investor class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On July 28, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints. On December 15, 2023, the court denied the class plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On December 29, 2023, the class plaintiffs petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for leave to appeal that decision. On February 28, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the class claims. On July 17, 2025, the court granted final approval of the settlement. CERES CLASSIC: Settlement in Suit vs. Viacom Has Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Ceres Classic L.P. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement entered into in the lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws against ViacomCBS has obtained final court approva. On August 13, 2021, the plaintiff in Camelot Event Driven Fund, a Series of Frank Funds Trust v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al. filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County ("Supreme Court of NY") a purported class action complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws against ViacomCBS ("Viacom"), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters, including the Company, of two March 2021 Viacom offerings: a $1,700 million Viacom Class B Common Stock offering and a $1,000 million offering of 5.75% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock (collectively, the "Offerings"). The complaint seeks certification of the class of plaintiffs and unspecified compensatory damages and alleges, inter alia, that the Viacom offering documents for both issuances contained material misrepresentations and omissions because they did not disclose that certain of the underwriters, including the Company, had prime brokerage relationships and/or served as counterparties to certain derivative transactions with Archegos Capital Management LP ("Archegos"), a fund with significant exposure to Viacom securities across multiple prime brokers. The complaint also alleges that the offering documents did not adequately disclose the risks associated with Archegos's concentrated Viacom positions at the various prime brokers, including that the unwind of those positions could have a deleterious impact on the stock price of Viacom. On November 5, 2021, the complaint was amended to add allegations that defendants failed to disclose that certain underwriters, including the Company, had intended to unwind Archegos's Viacom positions while simultaneously distributing the Offerings. On February 6, 2023, the court issued a decision denying motions to dismiss as to the Company and the other underwriters, but granting the motion to dismiss as to Viacom and the Viacom individual defendants. On February 15, 2023, the underwriters, including the Company, filed their notices of appeal of the denial of their motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2023, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Viacom and the individual Viacom defendants. On April 4, 2024, the Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decision as to the Company and other underwriter defendants that had prime brokerage relationships and/or served as counterparties to certain derivative transactions with Archegos, dismissed the remaining underwriters, and upheld the dismissal of Viacom and its officers and directors. On July 25, 2024, the Appellate Division denied the plaintiff's and the Company's respective motions for leave to reargue or appeal the April 4, 2024 decision. On January 4, 2024, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, which the defendants appealed. In February of 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On April 3, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and, on August 5, 2025, granted final approval. CHEGG INC: Settlement in "Leventhal" Has Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Chegg, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a California court has granted final approval of the settlement entered into in the putative class action lawsuit filed by Steven Leventhal. On December 22, 2021, Steven Leventhal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of Chegg common stock between May 5, 2020 and November 1, 2021, inclusive, against Chegg and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:21-cv-09953), alleging that Chegg and several of its officers made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (the Exchange Act). On September 7, 2022, KBC Asset Management and The Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters Retirement System were appointed as lead plaintiff in the case. On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint seeking unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses, including counsel and expert fees. On September 26, 2024, the parties participated in an in-person mediation and reached a settlement in principle to pay $55.0 million wherein the Company denies any and all allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages. On November 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court held a final approval hearing on April 24, 2025 and issued its final order approving of the settlement on May 21, 2025. The Court entered its Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal on June 20, 2025. On October 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their final Motion for Distribution with the Court, which will result in final approval for all accepted claims and will direct distribution of funds. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH: Faces Barpar Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------- Elanco Animal Health Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on October 7, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned "Joseph Barpar v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Elanco and two of its executives. Barpar alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and specifically alleged that Elanco and the two executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about the safety of and labeling for its Zenrelia(R) product, as well as the approval and launch timelines for Zenrelia and its Credelio Quattro(TM) product. The plaintiff purported to represent purchasers of Elanco securities between November 7, 2023 and June 26, 2024. On March 21, 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that extended the time period for which the plaintiff purported to represent purchasers of Elanco securities to between May 9, 2023 and June 26, 2024. The amended complaint also removed allegations concerning the approval and launch timelines for its Credelio Quattro product. On May 20, 2025, the company filed a motion to dismiss this case. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated is a pharmaceutical company which produces medicines and vaccinations for pets and livestock. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH: Saffron Capital Appeals Dismissal of Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Elanco Animal Health Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on October 23, 2025, the plaintiff appealed dismissal of a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned "Saffron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al." to the Indiana Supreme Court. The company's motion to dismiss said case was granted on April 17, 2024. On October 16, 2020, said action was filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco, certain executives and other individuals and entities. On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding an additional plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's relationships with third party distributors and revenue attributable to those distributors within the registration statement on Form S-3 dated January 21, 2020 and accompanying prospectus filed in connection with Elanco's public offering which closed on or about January 27, 2020. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco common stock or TEUs issued in connection with the public offering. From February 2021 to August 2022, this case was stayed in deference to another action. On October 24, 2022, the company filed a motion to dismiss. On December 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. Prior to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, on June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which is now the operative complaint. On October 13, 2023, plaintiff filed their opposition with regards to the company's August 7, 2023 motion to dismiss. On April 17, 2024, the company's motion to dismiss was granted. On or about October 4, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Subsequently, on or about March 20, 2025, the plaintiffs' motion for oral argument was denied, and on August 1, 2025, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting the motion to dismiss. On September 17, 2025, the plaintiff petitioned the court for a rehearing, which was subsequently denied. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated is a pharmaceutical company which produces medicines and vaccinations for pets and livestock. EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT: "Francisco" Class Conditionally Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Herlinda Francisco and Javier Bravo on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc., John Doe Corporations 1-50, and Dmitriy Berezovsky a/k/a Dmitry Berezovskiy, Defendants, Case No. 24-CV-3928 (AT) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.), United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action, approval of notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, and equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs brought this collective and putative class action against their former employers, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant had a common policy and practice across their 28 laundromats of (1) not paying the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees for time they worked before and after their shifts, and (2) for employees who worked at multiple locations, not aggregating each employee's hours across locations and thereby avoiding paying overtime. The Plaintiffs sought certification of a collective that includes all current and former non-exempt employees (including, but not limited to, laundry aides, laundry attendants, laundry housekeepers, laundry workers, ironers, steamers, and delivery persons, among others) employed by the Defendant on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint. At the early conditional stage of certification, the Court made an initial determination about whether there are potential opt-in plaintiffs who are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs with respect to whether a FLSA violation has occurred. The threshold for being similarly situated is low and requires only that named plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs are alike with regard to some material aspect of their litigation. The Court found that the Plaintiffs have met their burden at the conditional certification stage with allegations from the First Amended Complaint, declarations from the Plaintiffs Francisco and Bravo, declarations from five additional former employees of the Defendant, and exhibits that include pages from the Defendant's business website and deposition testimony of Defendant Berezovsky. The Plaintiffs demonstrated that the Defendant operates the 28 laundromats at issue as a single integrated enterprise in that they are interrelated operations that share common management, ownership, and business purpose, and have centralized control of labor relations. The Plaintiffs showed, on a preliminary basis, that they and other employees across multiple laundromat locations have been subject to a common policy or practice of (1) pre-shift and post-shift time-shaving, and (2) not aggregating pay for employees who worked at multiple locations. Both practices have deprived employees of overtime pay, or at least lessened the amount of their overtime pay. Both of the named Plaintiffs and the five other former employees attested to being required to work some combination of time before and after their shifts without being paid for that time. Employees were required to record their hours based only on their scheduled shifts, not on the time they actually worked. The Defendant argued that there is no evidence of a written policy. The Court found that there is no requirement that a policy be in writing; a common practice systematically applied among employees is sufficient. The Defendant contended that the information provided by the Plaintiffs and the other declarants is merely conclusory, particularly in referring to other employees without details of names, places, and specific conversations. The Court found that the overlapping corroboration by seven employees that they were subject to the alleged common time-shaving practice is more than sufficient to sustain the Plaintiffs' minimal burden to support conditional certification. The Defendant asserted that the time for which the Plaintiffs and other employees were not compensated is de minimis. The Court found that the uncompensated time described by the Plaintiffs and the other declarants does not qualify as de minimis. For example, the uncompensated time described by Francisco was a total of 45 minutes per day, comprised of 30 minutes pre-shift and 15 minutes post-shift. Those amounts add up to 3.75 hours of uncompensated time per five-day work week for each employee. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs and other employees each had varied experiences that give rise to individualized issues rather than class-wide issues. The Court found that individualized differences do not preclude conditional certification. What matters is that the collective members share an issue of fact or law material to resolution of their FLSA claims. The Defendant asserted that if conditional certification is warranted at all, it should only include employees at one location, 1225 St. Nicholas Avenue. The Court found that conditional certification properly extends to all 28 locations. The Plaintiffs' motion made several requests related to notice: its form, content, and means of distribution; the length of the opt-in notice period; to whom completed opt-in forms should be sent; and discovery of names and contact information for persons to receive notice. The Court approved the content of the notice and means of dissemination, subject to making modifications in the proposed notice and opt-in form. The Court agreed that the notice sent to prospective class members should include both an English and Spanish language version. The Court found it appropriate for completed opt-in forms to be sent to the Plaintiffs' counsel rather than to the Clerk of Court. The Plaintiffs proposed that opt-in members should encompass employees who worked for the Defendant any time from May 21, 2018, to the present. That request is premised on application of a six-year statute of limitations. The limitations period for FLSA claims is three years where plaintiffs allege willful conduct. The Court approved a three-year notice period for the collective action. The Plaintiffs asked that the Defendant be required to produce the names, last known addresses, cell phone numbers, and email addresses for potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Court found that requiring the Defendant to produce the requested contact information is warranted, as it is necessary to send notice to potential members of the collective. Equitable Tolling The Plaintiffs asked the Court to issue an order tolling the statute of limitations for all potential opt-in plaintiffs until such time that the Plaintiffs are able to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Court found that the Plaintiffs have not identified any rare and exceptional aspects of the case to justify equitable tolling. Accordingly, the Court denied equitable tolling at this time. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion. A collective is conditionally certified for all current and former non-exempt employees employed by the Defendant on or after the date that is three years before the filing of the Complaint. The conditional collective extends to all 28 laundromat locations. Within ten days of this Order, the Defendant shall provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel in Excel format contact information for the conditionally certified FLSA collective. The notice and opt-in form, and the proposed means of distribution of notice, are approved, subject to modification. Within twenty-one days of receipt of the contact information from the Defendant, the Plaintiffs' counsel shall disseminate the notice with opt-in form. The notice period shall remain open for a period of ninety days from issuance of the notice. Within fourteen days of receipt of a revised notice and opt-in form from the Plaintiffs, the Defendant shall post the workplace notice and opt-in form in each of the 28 laundromats, which shall remain posted through the end of the notice period. The Plaintiffs' request to equitably toll the statute of limitations is denied at this time without prejudice. A copy of the court's decision dated November 17, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5IfywX from PacerMonitor.com HRB DIGITAL: Cutar Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. ------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOANN CUTAR, on behalf of herself and 383 other similarly-situated California residents, Plaintiff v. HRB DIGITAL LLC and HRB TAX GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2516-CV37793, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00912-DGK to the proceeding. The object of Plaintiff's claim is to enable her counsel to bring 384 individual arbitrations on behalf of Plaintiff and 383 other claimants before the American Arbitration Association without honoring the terms of their clients' arbitration agreements, which are contained in H&R Block's Online Services Agreement. Specifically, the arbitration agreements, among other things, require (i) individualized informal settlement conferences prior to arbitration when timely requested by either party; and (ii) when (as here) there are large numbers of similar claims, a process for dividing the claims into a series of staged arbitrations, in which the first stage consists of 30 bellwether cases. The Plaintiff (and her counsel) seek to circumvent those requirements. The goal of Plaintiff's counsel is to press ahead with all of their clients' arbitrations at once in an effort to subject Defendants to per-case arbitration fees associated with all of those individual arbitrations. HRB Digital LLC (trade name H&R Block) is in the Tax Return Preparation Services business. HRB Tax Group, Inc. provides tax related services. It offers tax filing, audit, and e-filling services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Anthony J. Durone, Esq. Stacey R. Gilman, Esq. BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 561-7007 Facsimile: (816) 561-1888 E-mail: adurone@berkowitzoliver.com sgilman@berkowitzoliver.com HYP LLC: Cermeno ADA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as RICARDO JOSUE SALAZAR CERMENO Plaintiff, v. HYP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2025-127383-CC-05, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County Florida to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-25437-XXXX to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint contains causes of action arising from the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hyp LLC is a business entity based in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter J. Solnick, Esq. SOLNICK LAW P.A 3363 NE 163th Street Suite 801 N. Miami, FL 33330 Direct: 786-629-6530 E-mail: pete@solnicklaw.com MEADOWVALE INC: Mismanages Retirement Funds, Leslie Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JASON LESLIE and EDUARDO CAJINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEADOWVALE, INC.; ESOP COMMITTEE OF MEADOWVALE, INC.; JOSEPH G. GOMOLL; STEVEN P. STEINWART; and QHI, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-14040 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 17, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants enacted Plan Amendment Seven to the Meadowvale ESOP on August 30, 2024, for the sole purpose of retroactively providing Mr. Steinwart with the ability to receive a one-time lump sum payment from the Amended and Restated Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("Meadowvale ESOP" or "Plan"), while almost all other employees, including long-time employees Mr. Leslie and Mr. Cajina, were forced to undertake the risk associated with having their ESOP distributions incrementally paid out over five to ten years. Additionally, in a pact to undervalue the Meadowvale ESOP shares and to further enrich themselves, Defendants Gomoll and Steinwart failed to publicly disclose the existence of a Meadowvale-owned holding company, QHI, LLC, which they operated out of Meadowvale and to which they caused Meadowvale to pay above-market rents to QHI, which diminished the value of the Meadowvale ESOP shares of the Plan participants. As a result of the breaches of fiduciary duty, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered actual or imminent harm, including but not limited to, loss of Meadowvale ESOP benefits, and the increased risk of loss of retirement benefits by not receiving a lump-sum distribution of their benefits, alleges the suit. Meadowvale, Inc. is a manufacturer and supplier of frozen custard, ice cream, and soft serve mixes. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul M. Secunda Walcheske & Luzi, LLC 125 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: (224) 698-2630 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-Mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com - and - Mark D. DeBofsky Debofsky Law, Ltd. 2 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 1420 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: (312) 561-4040 Facsimile: (312) 600-4426 Email: mdebofsky@debofsky.com ONLINE INFORMATION: Coulter FCRA Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as RAMSEY COULTER, individually, on behalf of other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. ONLINE INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-008198-730, was removed from the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, for the State of North Carolina, County of Pitt to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00219-BO to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's claims arise under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. {"Experian") operates as an information services company, offering credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Caren D. Enloe, Esq. SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP P.O. Box 176010 Raleigh, NC 27619 Telephone: (919) 250-2000 Facsimile: (919) 250-2124 E-mail: cenloe@smithdebnamlaw.com STATE FARM: Broiles Fraud Suit Removed to W.D. Okla. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MITCH BROILES and TIFFANY BROILES, Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and KENNETH JAMES STATE FARM AGENCY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. CJ-2025-7450, was removed from the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on November 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01368-PRW to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff's Amended Petition appears to state (i) claims against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (i.e., a "bad faith" claim) and (ii) claims against the Kenneth James State Farm Agency, LLC for fraud and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an insurance company in Illinois. Kenneth James State Farm Agency, LLC is a State Farm Insurance Agent located at 4312 Classen Blvd in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118.[BN] Defendant State Farm is represented by: Andrew J. Morris, Esq. Braden M. Hoffmann, Esq. McAFEE & TAFT A PROFESSIONAL CORP. Eighth Floor, Two Leadership Square 211 North Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-9621 Facsimile: (405) 235-0439 E-mail: andrew.morris@mcafeetaft.com braden.hoffmann@mcafeetaft.com SYRACUSE HAULERS: Fact Discovery in Sims Due March 20, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DILLON SIMS, v. SYRACUSE HAULERS WASTE REMOVAL, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-01080-ECC-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katz entered a scheduling order as follows: Fact discovery limited to class certification issues shall be completed on or before March 20, 2026. Phase I expert discovery must be completed by: June 10, 2026. Class certification discovery motions shall be made on or before June 10, 2026. The Plaintiff's deadline to file the MCC under the FLSA is Nov. 21, 2025. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is July 3, 2026. The Defendant's deadline to file its response to that motion is July 31, 2026. The Defendant offers residential and commercial waste, trash, and recycling collection services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=raIZ7S at no extra charge.[CC] TPUSA INC: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to Dec. 12 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Payne v. TPUSA, Case No. 2:24-cv-00908 (D. Utah., Filed Dec. 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jill N. Parrish entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. -- Response due by Dec. 12, 2025 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). TPUSA provides telecommunication services.[CC] WUNDERKIND CORP: Wine Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DANIEL WINE, ALLISON BLANK, SANDRA SION, and KEVIN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs vs. WUNDERKIND CORP., a Delaware corporation; Defendant, Case No. 25CV145737, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10079 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges causes of action for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Unfair Competition Law, and common law invasion of privacy. The complaint alleges that Wunderkind purportedly intercepted and transmitted users' personally identifiable information to third-party data companies without the users' consent; caused the unauthorized disclosure of private information; violated the right to privacy; and caused potential exposure to targeted advertising or other unwanted consequences. Wunderkind Corp. operates as a software company. It provides one-to-one performance marketing solution and engine that delivers tailored experiences to individuals at scale.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ashley L. Shively, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415-743-6900 Facsimile: 415-743-6910 E-mail: ashley.shively@hklaw.com - and - Mark S. Melodia, Esq. Qian (Sheila) Shen, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 787 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3100 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 212-513-3200 Facsimile: 212-385-9010 E-mail: mark.melodia@hklaw.com qian.shen@hklaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***