/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250130.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 30, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 22 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Terry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ABLETO INC: Sessa Suit Seeks to Certify Class ABM INDUSTRY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Linares by Feb. 13 ACCELLION INC: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Still Set for April 17 ACCOUNTING FULFILLMENT: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Suit Says ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Ray by Feb. 14 AIR LIQUIDE: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Booze Suit Reset to June 5 ALLSTATE CORP: Roque Sues Over Collection & Sale of Consumers' Data AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hirsch Due Feb. 19 AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Varney Due Feb. 19 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Lourenco Cash Sweep Suit Goes to D. Minn. APPLE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Scott Due Oct. 17 ARENA TECHNICAL: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Birks Alleges ARSH LANDMARK: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action Lawsuit BANK OF AMERICA: Settle Investor Class Action Suit for $6.5-Mil. BASF CORP: Class Settlement in Antitrust Litigation Gets Approval BATON CORP: Faces Carnahan Suit Over PNUT Tokens Purchase BCG EQUITIES: Court Confirms Certification of Class in Louis BIOLIFE PLASMA: Wooten Sues Over Collection of Website Users' Info BLICK ART: Reyes Suit Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website BLUE CROSS: Court Strikes Experts' Disclosures BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Parties Allowed to File Supplemental Briefs CAPITAL ONE: Denies Account Holders Access to Funds, Zepeda Claims CARDLYTICS INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Mislabels Mouthrinse Products, Harden Says COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Verbish Files Product Mislabeling Suit CVS PHARMACY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 28 DANIELA DIAMONDS: General Pretrial Management Entered in Picon DHI MORTGAGE: Class Settlement in Ahlstrom Suit Gets Final Nod DREXEL BUILDING: Class Cert Deadline in Kidd Moved to Feb. 14 EARLY WARNING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Zelle Fraud FCA US: Filing of Bid to Alter Class Cert Order Due Feb. 7 GOODRX INC: Westoni Pillbox Alleges Unlawful Price-Fixing Scheme GREAT MOUNTAIN: Faces Hu Suit Over Kitchen Staff's Unpaid Wages HCF MANAGEMENT: Fails to Safeguard Employees' Info, Apthorp Says HEALTH CARE: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Rutherford HUDSON COVE: Al-Nahhas Sues Over Illegal Tribal Lending Scheme INARI MEDICAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Stryker IRVING FARM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Trippett Says J.E.T. LIMOUSINES: Fails to Properly Pay Chauffeurs, Reynolds Says KNIGHT SACRAMENTO: Faces Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations LEWIS AND CLARK: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Unsworth LLR INC: Van Bid to Alter Order Denying Class Cert Tossed MAMA TIGRE: Thompson Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action MDL 2904: Class Settlement in Opiate Litigation Gets Final Nod META PLATFORMS: Court Enters Case Management Order in Yoon METLIFE GROUP: Class Settlement in Kohari Gets Final Nod MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Silva Claims MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Shopping Browser Extension MONOPRICE INC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Settlement Deal in Guerrero Gets Final Nod NATIONAL NOTARY: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Turner Says NEW YORK LIFE: Faces Dickman Class Suit Over Disability Insurance NIKE RETAIL: Court Extends Time to Complete Discovery OE FEDERAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jimenez Due July 16 OLD NORTHERN: Faces Riley Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ONEBLOOD INC: Thrash Alleges Unauthorized Access of Personal Info PAYPAL INC: Manipulates Users' Network Transmissions, Bauer Says PEDIATRIC HOME: Faces Pfeifer Suit Over Clients' Leaked Info PIH HEALTH: Duran Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Pettinger Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Martinez-Turnbow Balks at Unprotected Info PRIMED MANAGEMENT: Faces Demingo Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. RAINBOW USA: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store RICHMOND FITNESS: Sends Unwanted Marketing Messages, McGonigle Says RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Quinn Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info ROCKET MORTGAGE: Appeals Court Dismisses Class Action Suit SAN FRANCISCO HILTON: Bid to Decertify Class in Gonzalez Tossed SHED MOVING: Patton Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Shed Movers SPORTY & RICH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agostini Alleges STIIIZY INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Krauth Says STIIIZY INC: Fasil to Safeguard Employees' Info, Anderson Says TECTA AMERICA: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Pike Says THERAPIE MEDICAL: Bunting Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind THOMAS H. LEE: Chickonoski Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty THOMAS H. LEE: Maglione Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty THOMAS H. LEE: SEIU Pension Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty TSYS MERCHANT: Class Cert Bid Filing in SBCW Extended to March 3 UNCLE CREDIT: Faces Ganjizadeh Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Jones Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal WELLS FARGO: SEB Investment Seeks to Seal Class Cert Material WELLS FARGO: Stipulation to Extend Page Limits in Henzel OK'd WELLS FARGO: Stipulation to Extend Page Limits in Winkler OK'd ********* 3M COMPANY: Terry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ----------------------------------------------------------- Loyde Terry, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-06506-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing, release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings, sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide ("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing "fluorochemical products." The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the Defendants. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants' fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Testicular Cancer. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Wilson, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com - and - John J. Driscoll, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC 1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com - and - Heidi J. Johnson, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC 211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com 3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Thomas, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-06740-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Army. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com ABLETO INC: Sessa Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Sessa, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AbleTo, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-02219-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). The Defendant allegedly made over 1.1 million robocalls to consumers without express consent. IN 2021, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a precorder voicemail. The Defendant sent at leas two more prerecorded voicemails on Jan. 31, 2023, and Feb. 10, 2023. AbleTo is a provider of virtual behavioral health care. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F93VUQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 401 Tampa East Jackson St. Suite 2340 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 - and - Ryan McBride, Esq. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mike@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com ABM INDUSTRY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Linares by Feb. 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFREN LINARES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC., FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF MODESTO, LLC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Case No. 1:22-cv-00816-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an order adjusting the Court's Class Action Scheduling Order issued on Jan. 23, 2024 as follows: 1. Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by Feb. 13, 2025 (previously Jan. 30, 2025); 2. Plaintiff's Reply is due by March 31, 2025 (previously March 17, 2025); and 3. The hearing for Class Certification is scheduled for May 1, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. (previously April 17, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.). This matter is a putative class, collective, and Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") action based primarily upon Plaintiff's allegations that Defendants fail to pay overtime wages at the regular rate of pay. On Jan. 23, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting the Parties' stipulation to adjust the Class Action Scheduling Order to require Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to be filed by Dec. 16, 2024, for Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to be filed by January 30, 2025, for Plaintiff’s Reply Brief to be filed by March 17, 2025, and for the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to be heard on April 17, 2025. The Plaintiff filed the Motion for Class Certification on Dec. 16, 2024. ABM provides facility services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xuL9HP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Daniel C. Keller, Esq. Caroline L. Hill, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com Dkeller@TheMMLawFirm.com CHill@TheMMLawFirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Paul M. Smith, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINES, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239- 9045 E-mail: Alexander.chemers@ogletree.com Paul.smith@ogletree.com ACCELLION INC: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Still Set for April 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc. (RE ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order that the class certification motion hearing remains scheduled for April 17, 2025. -- Accellion's opposition to class certification shall not exceed 35 pages and shall be due Feb. 10, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification shall not exceed 25 pages and shall be due March 24, 2025. On Sept. 18, 2024, the Court issued an order extending: -- the Plaintiffs' deadline to file a class certification motion to December 16, 2024, -- Accellion's deadline to file an opposition to Jan. 29, 2025, -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply to March 12, 2025, and a -- Hearing on the class certification motion to April 17, 2025 On Nov. 1, 2024, the Parties filed a joint stipulation to modify case schedule, requesting the court issue an order modifying the discovery deadlines and case schedule. On Nov. 5, 2024, the Court issued an order modifying the discovery deadlines and case schedule as outlined in the Parties' joint stipulation to modify case schedule. Accellion is a provider of on-demand secure file transfer solutions with an extensive customer base covering industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vh4ogk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com kquackenbush@girardsharp.com - and - Krystal K. Pachman, Esq. Michael Gervais, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Madeline M. Yzurdiaga, Esq. Kevin R. Downs, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com mgervais@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com myzurdiaga@susmangodfrey.com kdowns@susmangodfrey.com The Defendant is represented by: Fred Norton, Esq. Bree Hann, Esq. Gil Walton, Esq. Emily Kirk, Esq. Rebecca Kutlow, Esq. Heather Bates, Esq. THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 450 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 906-4900 E-mail: fnorton@nortonlaw.com bhann@nortonlaw.com gwalton@nortonlaw.com ekirk@nortonlaw.com rkutlow@nortonlaw.com hbates@nortonlaw.com - and - Camilo Artiga-Purcell, Esq. ACCELLION, INC. 1510 Fashion Island Blvd, Suite 100 San Mateo, CA 94404 Telephone: (415) 515-4724 ACCOUNTING FULFILLMENT: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NATISHA RIESKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCOUNTING FULFILLMENT SERVICES LLC (dba) 1-800ACCOUNTANT, MICHAEL SAVAGE, and BRENDON PACK, individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00045 (M.D. Fla., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a customer service representative at the Defendants' call center in Largo, Florida from October 2021 through September 13, 2024. Accounting Fulfillment Services LLC, doing business as 1-800Accountant, is a virtual accounting firm in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Ray by Feb. 14 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ray v. AdaptHealth, Corp., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00898 (M.D.N.C., Filed Oct. 20, 2022), the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order as follows: -- AdaptHealth's opposition to the Motion Feb. 14, 2025 for Class Certification shall be filed on or before: -- The Plaintiff's reply memorandum in March 7, 2025 support of the Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or before: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. AdaptHealth provides medical products and solutions designed to help patients manage chronic conditions in the home.[CC] AIR LIQUIDE: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Booze Suit Reset to June 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Booze v. Air Liquide Advanced Materials, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01288 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 1, 2024), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting in part the parties' stipulation to stay the case for 28 days. -- The hearing on the motion to compel arbitration is reset for March 27. -- The hearing on the motion for class certification is reset for June 5. -- No further stay, and no further extensions, will be granted. The nature of suit states diversity-employment discrimination. Air Liquide provides ultrahigh purity gases and advanced materials to the semiconductor industry.[CC] ALLSTATE CORP: Roque Sues Over Collection & Sale of Consumers' Data ------------------------------------------------------------------- KAYTLIN ROQUE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ARITY, LLC, ARITY 875, LLC, and ARITY SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00709 (N.D. Ill., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud And Abuse Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the California Penal Code Section, the California Wiretapping Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of collecting and selling the driving data of millions of Americans, including the Plaintiff, without obtaining prior consent. The Defendants achieved this by developing and integrating their software into third-party mobile applications. As a result, when the Plaintiff and Class members used these apps, the Defendants could monitor their locations and movements in real-time, thereby allowing the Defendants to surreptitiously collect a multitude of highly valuable data directly from consumers' mobile phones. Once collected, the Defendants found several ways to monetize the ill-gotten data, including by selling access to the Defendants' driving behavior database to other insurers and using the data for the Defendants' own insurance underwriting. The Plaintiff and Class members seek damages for the losses suffered as a result of the Defendants' misconduct, and injunctive relief aimed at preventing the Defendants from engaging in such practices in the future. The Allstate Corporation is a provider of insurance products headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Allstate Insurance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation, headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company is a subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation, headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. Arity, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation, headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. Arity 875, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation, headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. Arity Services, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hirsch Due Feb. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hirsch, et al., v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-04005 (W.D. Mo., Filed Jan. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the joint motion to further extend briefing deadlines related to class certification: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class Feb. 19, 2025 certification is due on or before: -- The Defendant's Opposition Brief is March 29, 2025 due on or before: -- The Plaintiff's Reply Brief is April 21, 2025 due on or before: The nature of suit states Contract – Insurance. AmFam is an American private mutual company that focuses on property, casualty, and auto insurance.[CC] AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Varney Due Feb. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Varney v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-04004 (W.D. Mo., Filed Jan. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting the joint motion to further extend briefing deadlines related to class certification: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class Feb. 19, 2025 certification is due on or before: -- The Defendant's Opposition Brief is March 28, 2025 due on or before: -- The Plaintiff's Reply Brief is due April 21, 2025 on or before: The nature of suit states diversity-contract dispute. AmFam is an American private mutual company that focuses on property, casualty, and auto insurance.[CC] AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Lourenco Cash Sweep Suit Goes to D. Minn. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TED LOURENCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL INC., AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., and AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-08825, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on January 22, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-00244-NEB-DTS to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful practice of sweeping idle customer cash into interest-bearing accounts at banks selected by, and affiliated with, the Defendants under their Ameriprise Insured Money Market Account and the Ameriprise Bank Insured Sweep Account sweep program. As a result, the Defendants enriched themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to customers. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a financial services company, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC is a subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. American Enterprise Investment Services Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial, Inc., located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com adam@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com APPLE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Scott Due Oct. 17 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT v. APPLE INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00475 (D.D.C., Filed Feb. 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Amir H. Ali entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for Oct. 17, 2025 class certification and class certification expert reports is: -- The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition Dec. 19, 2025 brief and opposing class certification expert reports is: -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in Jan. 23, 2026 support of class certification is: The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Apple Inc. is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, in Silicon Valley.[CC] ARENA TECHNICAL: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Birks Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN BIRKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARENA TECHNICAL RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-00164-TDC (D. Md., Jan. 16, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information including Social Security numbers. On Aug. 10, 2024, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential Private Information stored therein, causing widespread injuries to the Plaintiff and Class Members. Although the Data Breach took place on Aug. 10, 2024, the Defendant failed to notify affected individuals that their Private Information was compromised until Dec. 17, 2024—diminishing Plaintiff's and Class Members' ability to timely and thoroughly mitigate and address the increased, imminent risk of identity theft and other harms the Data Breach caused, the suit says. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered and will continue to suffer concrete injuries in fact, including (a) financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (b) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (c) actual identity theft and fraud; (d) loss of privacy; (e) emotional distress including anxiety and stress in with dealing with the Data Breach; and (f) the continued risk to their sensitive Private Information, the suit contends. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant, Defendant's clients' and/or clients of the Defendant. Arena provides technical and staffing services for prospects and employers.[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 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com - and - Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ARSH LANDMARK: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ZEPEDA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARSH LANDMARK GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, CORP., GARIB TANEJA, and MUHAMMAD SABIR, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00632 (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, fraudulent filing of information returns, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff was employed as a laborer for the Defendants from July 2022 until January 2024. Arsh Landmark General Construction, Corp. is a construction company with its principal place of business in Richmond Hill, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a Mastercard holder claims in a proposed class action lawsuit that Bank of America breached its contractual agreement by failing to honor his credit card rewards bonus offer. The 13-page lawsuit was filed by a Massachusetts resident who accuses the bank of using "bait-and-switch tactics" to lure him into signing a contract for a credit card pursuant to a specific bonus offer and then unilaterally changing the terms without adequate notice or "any justifiable reason." The suit says that in April 2024, the plaintiff applied for an Air France KLM World Elite Mastercard to take advantage of an advertised offer that promised to provide new applicants with "70,000 Bonus Miles plus 40 XP (Experience Points)" if they made at least $3,000 in purchases within the first 90 days of their account opening. The promotion also offered an extra 60 XP upon approval, the case adds. According to the complaint, the plaintiff began to make transactions after receiving the credit card, and when his wallet went missing a month later, he requested a replacement card from Bank of America. The filing shares that with the new credit card, the bank provided a document detailing the man's original bonus offer, as well as a second paper advertising a new plan, which offered only 50,000 bonus miles and 60 XP after $2,000 or more in purchases in the first 90 days. "[The plaintiff], who had already contracted pursuant to the original offer and saw the original offer on the new set of documents, reasonably concluded that his original contract applied," the suit relays. "Indeed, there was no reason why it would not." However, the plaintiff did not receive the original bonus offer rewards despite spending well over the required $3,000 on the card within the 90-day period, the Bank of America lawsuit contends. Instead, the bank superseded the man's original contract, applied the second offer and refused to abide by the terms of the previous promotion, the case claims. The plaintiff says he was "extremely frustrated and upset" when he learned he would not receive the expected credit card rewards. Notably, the man was told by a Bank of America representative on the phone that the bank had received "numerous complaints related to its bait-and-switch of [the] advertised offer," the complaint alleges. Bank of America has faced previous legal action from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over the bank's allegedly unfair and deceptive conduct with respect to withholding credit card rewards, the filing states. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who, in the last four years, applied for a Mastercard with an offer to earn 70,000 bonus miles plus 40 XP after making $3,000 or more in purchases within the first 90 days of opening their account and was not provided those rewards. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Settle Investor Class Action Suit for $6.5-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton of Investment Executive reports that a couple of Canadian banks, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) and TD Bank, have signed onto settlements that resolve a proposed class action that arose following regulatory investigations in Europe and the U.S. into alleged collusion in a segment of the over-the-counter (OTC) bond markets. In 2015, regulatory authorities in Europe and the U.S. launched investigations into suspected manipulation in the global market for supranational, sub-sovereign and agency bonds (SSA bonds). Ultimately, the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) and the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) closed their investigations without alleging any wrongdoing, but European regulators alleged that four banks -- Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Credit Agricole and Credit Suisse -- breached competition laws. And in 2021, three of the banks were fined a combined €28.5 million. Deutsche Bank was granted immunity for cooperating with the investigation. In the wake of the regulators' investigations, investor class actions were filed, first in the U.S., and later in Canada, alleging that 11 of the world's largest financial institutions improperly shared trading information in an effort to rig the price of SSA bonds. In the U.S., three banks -- Bank of America, HSBC and Deutsche Bank -- reached a US$95.5-million settlement of the investor class action against them. But in March 2020, a U.S. district court dismissed the claims against various other banks that had been named in that suit. Now, the proposed class action in Canada -- which sought $1 billion plus punitive damages -- has been settled for just $6.5 million. Two of the banks settled for just over $2 million in 2020, and settlements with the nine others, including RBC and TD, were approved by the Federal Court of Canada in November 2024. The nine settling banks, which denied the allegations, will pay a combined $4.2 million to resolve the case. The bulk of the settlement money, or about $2.2 million, is coming from Deutsche Bank. RBC and TD, which were not implicated in any of the regulatory investigations, are paying $250,000 each; while the other banks are paying between $150,000 and $500,000 each to settle the case. "The financial terms of settlement are, as the plaintiffs acknowledge, relatively modest. But in the context of the likelihood of success and the costs and risks of going forward to a certification motion, the financial terms are more than satisfactory," the federal court said in its ruling approving the settlements. After legal fees and other expenses, the most recent settlements will leave $3.1 million to be shared among investors. However, that money will largely be shared by institutional investors, as they are the primary participants in the global SSA bond markets, and participation in the settlement is restricted to investors who made SSA bond trades worth at least $10 million. For investors that qualify under the settlement, their payouts will be pro-rated based on the total value of transactions that investors were involved with in SSA bonds in the years covered by the settlement, from 2005 to 2015. The deadline to participate in the settlement is July 25. [GN] BASF CORP: Class Settlement in Antitrust Litigation Gets Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:14-cv-09391-GHW-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Woods entered an order judgment approving class action settlement: The Court certifies, for the purposes of settlement only the following Settlement Class: "All persons or entities who during the period from Jan. 1, 2008 through Nov. 30, 2014, either (i) sold platinum or palladium futures contracts in transactions conducted in whole or in part on NYMEX; (ii) sold platinum or palladium call options in transactions conducted in whole or in part on NYMEX; or (iii) bought platinum or palladium put options in transactions conducted in whole or in part on NYMEX." Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their employees, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and alleged co-conspirators, whether or not named in this Complaint, and the U.S. government; provided, however, that Investment Vehicles shall not be excluded from the definition of "Settlement Class." Also excluded is the Judge presiding over this action, his or her law clerks, spouse, and any person within the third degree of relationship living in the Judge's household and the spouse of such a person. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied for settlement purposes. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants BASF Corporation, BASF Metals Limited, Goldman Sachs International, ICBC Standard Bank Plc, UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC, and the London Platinum and Palladium Fixing Company Ltd. manipulated and artificially suppressed the price of physical platinum and palladium. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SI2Il2 at no extra charge.[CC] BATON CORP: Faces Carnahan Suit Over PNUT Tokens Purchase --------------------------------------------------------- KENDALL CARNAHAN v. BATON CORPORATION LTD, d/b/a PUMP.FUN, ALON COHEN, DYLAN KERLER, and NOAH BERNHARD HUGO TWEEDALE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00490 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2025) is a federal securities action on behalf of a Class of all purchasers of PNUT Tokens alleging claims against the Defendants who own and operate the website Pump.Fun for offering and/or selling the cryptocurrency memecoins known as the PNUT (or Peanut the Squirrel) Token, which is and was an unregistered security, in violation of Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. Pump.Fun has extracted nearly half a billion dollars in fees from investors by selling highly volatile unregistered securities. In reality, Pump.Fun has experienced rapid growth through a novel marketing technique driven by what is benignly termed the attention economy, which includes memetic themes, and internet culture. This guerilla marketing has supported the mass adoption of unregistered security memecoins, including those that are the subject of this case. Over the past nine months, the Defendants have orchestrated this scheme by providing automated tools that allow anyone to create and sell nearly worthless digital tokens in minutes. Pump.Fun omits basic investor protections, including Know Your Customer procedures, anti-money laundering protocols, and risk disclosures. This is exemplified by the ease in which any person regardless of age can create an account and purchase a token in less than 5 minutes, says the suit. Memecoins are a category of cryptocurrency that derive their perceived value primarily from internet culture, social media promotion, and speculative trading rather than any underlying utility or technological innovation. Unlike traditional cryptocurrencies designed to serve specific technological or economic functions, memecoins are created and marketed purely for speculative trading purposes. Memecoins are frequently subject to coordinated market manipulation, particularly through “pump-and-dump” schemes. In these schemes, early investors or insiders artificially inflate token prices through coordinated buying and promotional campaigns, then sell their holdings at peak prices, causing the Token’s value to collapse and leaving later investors with substantial losses, the suit added. The Plaintiff purchased PNUT Tokens and was damaged thereby. Pump.Fun is an Internet platform founded in the United States that allows users to create crypto-currencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chet B. Waldman, Esq. Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq. Terrence Zhang, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: cwaldman@wolfpopper.com jruthizer@wolfpopper.com tzhang@wolfpopper.com - and - Max Burwick, Esq. BURWICK LAW, PLLC 43 West 43rd Street, Suite 114 New York, NY 10036 E-mail: max@burwick.law BCG EQUITIES: Court Confirms Certification of Class in Louis ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANDLEY LOUIS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. BCG EQUITIES, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61084-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Dimitrouleas entered an order confirming certification of the following class, for settlement purposes, under Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons (a) with a Florida address, (b) against whom BCG Equities, LLC filed a complaint in a Florida court, (c) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (d) from June 21, 2023, through August 2, 2024. This Court finds that this matter meets the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Rule 23" Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4), the Court also confirms its appointment of Frandley Louis as class representative for the class. The Court approves the terms of the Parties' settlement, the material terms of which include, but are not limited to: 1. The Defendant will create a non-reversionary class settlement fund in the amount of $6,500 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1692k(a)(2)(B)(ii), which will be distributed on a pro-rata basis to all Class Members who do not exclude themselves; 2. The Defendant separately will pay to Plaintiff $1,000 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1692k(a)(2)(B)(i); 3. The Defendant will pay all costs of class notice and administration of the settlement separate and apart from any monies paid to Plaintiff, Class Members, or class counsel; and 4. The Defendant will no longer file lawsuits to collect consumer debt in the state of Florida without first registering as a consumer collection agency with the State of Florida Office of Financial Regulation. The Court approves the payment of $1,000 to Plaintiff in individual statutory damages under the FDCPA. This payment is to be made by Defendant separate and apart from the Settlement Fund and Plaintiff's pro-rata share of the same. The Defendant's payment of Plaintiff’s individual damages will not diminish Class Members' recoveries from the Settlement Fund. The lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice as to all other issues and as to all parties and claims. The Clerk is directed to close this case. The Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties and all matters relating to this matter, including the administration, interpretation, construction, effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the settlement and this order. The Court will issue a separate order on the Plaintiff's request for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. BCG Equities is a financial services firm based in Brookfield, WI, specializing in investment management and advisory services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n8bXEN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 BIOLIFE PLASMA: Wooten Sues Over Collection of Website Users' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ EVAN WOOTEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIOLIFE PLASMA SERVICES L.P. and TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-at-00071 (E.D. Cal., January 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Information Privacy Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendants' installation of trackers on their website which enabled third parties, Snapchat and Salesforce, to intercept and collect website users' personal information without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendants used the information intercepted and collected by the third parties for marketing, advertising, and analytics purposes. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. BioLife Plasma Services L.P. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business in Deerfield, Illinois. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business in Cambridge, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com BLICK ART: Reyes Suit Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- NATHALIE REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLICK ART MATERIALS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00570 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, 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 website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.dickblick.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate heading hierarchy, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some actions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Blick Art Materials, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com BLUE CROSS: Court Strikes Experts' Disclosures ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANAE WOLLENBERG; SHELLY INGRAM; and RACHEL WHETSTONE, individually and on behalf of other members of the putative class, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-04029-TC-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Teresa James entered an order: -- granting Plaintiffs' motion to Strike Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.'s expert disclosures of Keziah Cook and Jesse David; and -- denying as moot Defendant's motion for extension of time to provide supplemental expert reports. The Defendant argues it would be prejudiced by the striking of expert testimony from Drs. Cook and David. The Court disagrees. Defendant is attempting to create a right and opportunity to present rebuttal expert testimony where there is no opposing expert to rebut. The Defendant simply is entitled to no such right under the applicable Federal Rule and well-established case law. Plaintiffs and Defendant chose not to make Phase I initial expert disclosures. Both sides had that right and, as a result, neither side will have expert witnesses or rebuttal expert witnesses in Phase I. Moreover if, as Defendant so adamantly contends in its briefing, Plaintiffs as a matter of law must have expert testimony to support their damages claims in this action, then Defendant can make that legal argument, without an expert, in a dispositive motion. In striking Drs. Cook and David, the Court finds that the issues raised in Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time are now moot. Blue Cross offers healthcare, dental, life insurance and Medicare coverage. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WJR8Lp at no extra charge.[CC] BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Parties Allowed to File Supplemental Briefs ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stafford v. Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00266 (W.D.N.C., Filed May 6, 2020), the Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. entered an order granting the parties leave to file supplemental briefs regarding class certification and decertification, with opening briefs due on March 3, 2025, and response briefs due on March 31, 2025. Trial date is extended to June 16, 2025. The nature of suit states civil rights -- job discrimination (employment). Bojangles is an American regional chain of fast food restaurants that specializes in Cajun-seasoned fried chicken.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Denies Account Holders Access to Funds, Zepeda Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL ZEPEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, NA, and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), NA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00114 (E.D. Va., January 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, negligence, conversion, unjust enrichment, violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful business practices including denying account holders' access to their funds, failing to make funds available in a timely matter, and misappropriating funds held in Capital One accounts. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff and Class members have been unable to access their funds, depriving them of the ability to purchase essential items such as food, clothing, and shelter. The Plaintiff and Class members seek compensatory damages, interest for Capital One's late transfer of deposits, punitive damages, and injunctive relief to prevent the continuation of Capital One's misconduct. Capital One Financial Corporation is a financial products and services provider, doing business in Virginia. Capital One, NA is a financial products and services provider, doing business in Virginia. Capital One Bank (USA), NA is a financial products and services provider, doing business in Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn Chappell, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Email: gchappell@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com - and - Annick M. Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0900 Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com CARDLYTICS INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, captioned Froess v. Cardlytics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-279, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Cardlytics, Inc. ("Cardlytics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CDLX) securities between March 14, 2024 and August 7, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What Happened? On May 8, 2024, after the market closed, the Company revealed that its first quarter 2024 revenue only increased 8% year-over-year, despite a 12% increase in billings, due to a 20.2% increase in consumer incentives. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.33, or 36.5%, to close at $9.27 per share on May 9, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. On August 7, 2024, after the market closed, Cardlytics released its second quarter 2024 financial results, revealing a 9% year-over-year decrease in revenue to $69.6 million, alongside a 3% decline in adjusted contribution to $36.4 million. The press release also disclosed that Karim Temsamani had stepped down as Chief Executive Officer and from the Board of Directors. On this news, Cardlytics' stock price fell $3.94, or 57.1%, to close at $2.96 per share on August 8, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) increasing consumer engagement led to an increase in consumer incentives; (2) that the Company could not increase its billings commensurate with the increased consumer engagement; (3) that, as a result, there was a significant risk that its revenue growth would slow or decline; (4) that the changes to ADE, which led to increased consumer engagement, led to the "under-delivery" of budgets and customers billing estimates; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cardlytics securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq., 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. [GN] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Mislabels Mouthrinse Products, Harden Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASON HARDEN, BRITTANY BEAL, CAROLYN WENTWORH, MARY DAVIS, KAYLA SMITH, SUSAN COLBY, RENA DREW, & SANDRA VATALARO, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00362 (N.D. Ill., January 13, 2025) is brought pursuant to the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act and other state consumer fraud statutes seeking to hold Defendant accountable for the false, misleading, and unlawful labeling of its mouthrinse products, the Colgate and Toms Rinses, which puts the health of millions of children at risk. The packaging of the Toms Rinse and Colgate Rinse conveys the false and misleading impression that both products are meant for, and safe for, young children to use. The reality, which Defendant conceals, is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that fluoride mouthrinse is too dangerous for children under 6 to use, says the suit. Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that fluoride mouthrinse should not be swallowed (by any age group, but especially by young children), the Defendant presents its Toms Rinse as a fruit-juice like liquid, even boasting that it is made "with real fruit juice!" Presenting fluoride mouthrinse as a kids' flavored drink product, or as a candy-like product in the case of Colgate Rinse, is both deceptive and dangerous, the suit added. The Plaintiffs and the Class members purchased Colgate and Toms Rinse for their preschool children. Colgate-Palmolive Company is an American multinational consumer products company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com - and - Aaron Siri, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. Lisa Considine, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com ebrehm@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Verbish Files Product Mislabeling Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ CHEYENNE VERBISH, ERICA DOUTHERD, ASHLEY CHERRY, TAMBRA RECEK, CHARLOTTE LAZAR, CAMARIA BURLEIGH, TANISIER CLAYBORNE, SHERRY HODGE, ANJU GOEL, JOSH COOK, CYNTHIA RIVERA, MEGAN CRATSLEY, CHARLENE ROSEBORO & TIARRA HOOK, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00426 (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2025) is brought pursuant to the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act and other state consumer fraud statutes seeking to hold Defendant accountable for the false, misleading, and unlawful labeling of its kids-branded toothpastes, the Colgate and Toms Rinses, which puts the health of millions of children at risk. The complaint alleges that Defendant knows its fluoride toothpastes, including its "kids" versions, are not safe for young children to swallow. But it deceptively markets these Kids products in ways that lead parents and caregivers to believe they are extra safe for children -- which Defendant knows is false. Colgate's deceptive marketing tactics cause millions of caregivers in the U.S. to unwittingly permit and encourage their children to use far more toothpaste than is recommended or safe. Not only does this pose significant health risks for children, it reduces the number of brushings that families receive per tube, causing economic loss to consumers and unjust enrichment to Defendant, says the suit. The Plaintiffs permitted their toddlers and preschool children to regularly use this toothpaste in quantities that, unbeknownst to them, far exceed the safe and recommended amount. They suffered economic loss as a result by obtaining fewer brushings per product, the suit asserts. Colgate-Palmolive Company is an American multinational consumer products company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com - and - Aaron Siri, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com ebrehm@sirillp.com CVS PHARMACY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 28 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE ONE, RICHARD ROE, in his capacity as executor for JOHN DOE TWO, JOHN DOE SIX, and JOHN DOE SEVEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and for the benefit of the general public, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, L.L.C.; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, L.L.C.; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-01031-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered an order granting the Parties' second joint motion regarding the briefing deadlines. a. Opposition to Class Certification: Feb. 28, 2025 b. Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification: March 28, 2025 c. Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: May 22, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. On January 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs requested that the deposition of their expert, Michelle J. Sherman, who resides in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, be postponed from the previously agreed-upon January 22 date, to a later date, due to the ongoing wildfires. The wildfires currently are presenting personal and professional challenges for Ms. Sherman, which requires the deposition be rescheduled. The first available date for both sets of counsel and the expert is February 19, which in turn requires resetting the class certification briefing schedule again. CVS distributes pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zM23EM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. Edith M. Kallas, Esq. Henry C. Quillen, Esq. C. Nicholas Dorman, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 16970 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 674-6641 Facsimile: (855) 274-1888 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com jwhatley@whatleykallas.com ekallas@whatleykallas.com hquillen@whatleykallas.com ndorman@whatleykallas.com - and - Benjamin Powell, Esq. Ryan Mellino, Esq. CONSUMER WATCHDOG 6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 392-0522 E-mail: ben@consumerwatchdog.org ryan@consumerwatchdog.org The Defendants are represented by: Enu Mainigi, Esq. Craig D. Singer, Esq. Grant A. Geyerman, Esq. Benjamin W. Graham, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 - and - John J. Atallah, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Ste. 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 972-4500 Facsimile: (213) 486-0065 DANIELA DIAMONDS: General Pretrial Management Entered in Picon -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Daniela Diamonds, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09263-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: -- If Daniela Diamonds, LLC has not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint before January 31, 2025, the Plaintiff shall, on that date, either file a stipulation granting defendant additional time or apply for entry of default. -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing. The Plaintiff filed her complaint on Dec. 5, 2024. The Plaintiff served defendant Daniela Diamonds, LLC on Dec. 17, 2024, making the Defendant's answer due Jan. 7, 2025. Although that date has come and gone, Daniela Diamonds, LLC has not appeared and has not filed an answer to the complaint. To date, plaintiff has not requested a certificate of default. Daniela Diamonds is a jeweler in New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hLEz13 at no extra charge.[CC] DHI MORTGAGE: Class Settlement in Ahlstrom Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT W. AHLSTROM, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, v. DHI MORTGAGE COMPANY LTD. L.P., a Texas limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-03435-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement, attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation costs, and enhancement award and entering judgment: 1. The Court confirms certification, for settlement purposes only, of the Classes as follows: a. "all DHI California non-exempt employees who worked as mortgage loan officer, loan originators, licensed loan originator assistants, and unlicensed loan originator assistants from March 27, 2015 through the date of preliminary approval." b. The PAGA Group is "all DHI non-exempt employees who worked as mortgage loan officer, loan originators, licensed loan originator assistants, and unlicensed loan originator assistants in California from Aug. 4, 2016 through the date of the trial court judgment date (i.e. November 2021)." c. The Collective members in the Class Action are "all DHI California non-exempt employees who worked as mortgage loan officers, loan originators, licensed loan originator assistants, and unlicensed loan originator assistants from March 27, 2016, through the date of conditional approval." 2. The Court finds and determines that the fees and expenses in administrating the Settlement, in the amount of $3,500, are fair and reasonable. 3. The Court finds that Setareh Law Group's ("Class Counsel") application for Class Counsel fees and reimbursement of litigation costs is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and orders that fees in the amount of one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount, which is $100,000, and costs in the amount of $17,858.29 be paid to Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. 4. In addition to any recovery Plaintiff may receive under the Settlement as Settlement Class Members and/or PAGA Group Members, and in recognition of Plaintiff's efforts on behalf of the Class, the Court hereby approves and orders the payment of an enhancement award of $5,000 to Plaintiff the Estate of Robert W. Ahlstrom through Kianna Ahlstrom. 5. The Court finds and determines the $20,000 allocated for PAGA penalties to be fair and reasonable and approves the Settlement pursuant to California Labor Code Section 2699(l). 6. The Court orders payment of PAGA penalties in the amount of $15,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") representing the LWDA's 75% share of the $20,000 allocated to PAGA penalties and payment of the remaining 25% to PAGA Group Members as provided for in the Settlement. 7. The Court hereby enters final judgment in accordance with the terms of the Settlement, the Preliminary Approval Order filed on July 30, 2024, and this order. DHI Mortgage provides home finance solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zMw11F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com DREXEL BUILDING: Class Cert Deadline in Kidd Moved to Feb. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amber Kidd, v. Drexel Building Supply, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00356 (W.D. Wisc. Filed May 28, 2024), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order granting the parties' stipulated motion seeking to move the class certification deadline to Feb. 14, 2025. Because the parties have asked jointly and this shift should not impact any other case deadlines, the request is granted. All other deadlines remain in place, the Court says. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving collection of unpaid wages. Drexel is a construction company based in Berlin, Wisconsin specializing in door and window hardware, window wall assemblies, windows.[CC] EARLY WARNING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Zelle Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- Erin Shaak of ClassAction.Org reports that on December 20, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) hit the operator of Zelle and three of its owner banks with a lawsuit claiming they let down customers and violated federal law by allowing fraud to run rampant on the popular payment platform. According to the Zelle lawsuit, fintech company Early Warning Services (EWS), Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo are to blame for customers collectively losing over $870 million to fraud since Zelle was first launched in 2017. The case says the defendants did little to prevent criminals and fraudsters from exploiting the platform and essentially left victims to fend for themselves without any recourse. The CFPB Zelle lawsuit, which is not a class action (more on this below), is still in its early stages -- so if you've heard rumors about a settlement, it's a little too early to determine whether affected Zelle users will get any money back. In the meantime, you've come to the right place for the details about the lawsuit, what it could mean for consumers, and when Zelle users may need to act. Let's start with the first question on everyone's mind . . . How do I file a Zelle lawsuit claim? At this point, it's still too early to fill out a Zelle lawsuit claim form. The case was only just filed and likely still has a long way to go before it can be resolved. If a settlement is eventually reached, the CFPB or one of the defendants may automatically send you a check in the mail if their records indicate that you are eligible for a refund or payment. In situations where the CFPB needs additional information to determine whether someone is eligible for redress, the Bureau will mail claim forms to potentially affected individuals or send a notice to complete an online claim form. In other words, if there is a Zelle lawsuit settlement that you could be eligible for, you'll likely be directly contacted. So, is this a Zelle class action lawsuit? The CFPB Zelle lawsuit is not a class action. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has authority to file what's called enforcement actions in state or federal court over alleged violations of consumer financial protection laws. In some ways, an enforcement action is similar to a class action in that it can provide redress for a group of harmed individuals. For instance, a recent CFPB enforcement action resulted in the operator of Cash App being ordered to pay up to $120 million to consumers who were harmed by the company's alleged failure to prevent and investigate fraud on its platform. Through its recent enforcement action against Zelle, the CFPB seeks to order the defendants to stop any unlawful conduct and compensate affected consumers. The lawsuit is also looking to require the defendants to pay a civil penalty into the CFPB's victims relief fund, which is used by the Bureau to provide money for people who were harmed by violations of financial protection laws. In the years prior to the CFPB Zelle case, there have been a handful of class action lawsuits filed against the owners of the platform. A Zelle lawsuit against Bank of America was recently resolved in favor of the defendants. Chase Bank also faced a lawsuit over Zelle fraud that was sent to arbitration, and a proposed class action against Wells Fargo was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. What is the CFPB Zelle lawsuit about, exactly? The lawsuit claims Early Warning Services (a fintech company owned by seven of the largest banks in the United States), Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo ran afoul of the Consumer Financial Protection Act by failing to prevent, detect and respond to fraud on the Zelle platform. According to the case, the defendants essentially rushed Zelle to market without proper safeguards to protect customers from fraud -- and then largely refused to provide any assistance to fraud victims, in some cases suggesting they try to recover their money from the criminals themselves. As a result, the suit says, scammers and fraudsters flocked to the platform to take advantage of its limited verification methods. Per the case, Zelle made it easy for bad actors to create multiple new accounts, mask their identities, and steal money from users by switching the deposit accounts linked to victims' phone numbers or emails. Meanwhile, the defendants allegedly advertised the platform as "safe," "secure" and "backed by the banks," which the suit says gave consumers a false sense of security. The lawsuit goes on to claim that the defendants did not do enough to stop fraud after it was detected. Banks on the Zelle network allegedly failed to share information with other banks, which allowed bad actors to carry out fraud at multiple institutions, duping victim after victim, without being detected. Bank of America, Chase and Wells Fargo have also been accused of violating the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by failing to properly investigate and respond to customers' fraud and error reports. Per the case, despite receiving hundreds of thousands of customer complaints, the banks did little to rein in the widespread fraud, timely report it, and provide legally required assistance and compensation to victims. In response to the allegations, a Zelle spokesperson issued the following statement: "The CFPB's attacks on Zelle are legally and factually flawed, and the timing of this lawsuit appears to be driven by political factors unrelated to Zelle. Zelle leads the fight against scams and fraud and has industry-leading reimbursement policies that go above and beyond the law. The CFPB's misguided attacks will embolden criminals, cost consumers more in fees, stifle small businesses and make it harder for thousands of community banks and credit unions to compete. Zelle is relied upon by 143 million enrolled American consumers and small businesses, and we are fully prepared to defend this meritless lawsuit to ensure their service does not suffer." [GN] FCA US: Filing of Bid to Alter Class Cert Order Due Feb. 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERYL WALL, DAVID GOLDSMITH, and MICHAEL V. NATHAN, JR. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 5:16-cv-01341-TJH-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry Hatter, Jr. entered an order as follows: -- The Order requires the Parties to file their initial motions on Jan. 17, 2025, oppositions to those motions on Feb. 14, 2025, and replies in support of those motions on March 7, 2025. -- The Parties seek a three-week extension of these deadlines, in part, due to the ongoing wildfires in and around Los Angeles County. -- The Plaintiffs' California counsel is deeply involved with the preparation of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but the threat of wildfire has significantly interrupted that work. The extension sets the new deadlines as: A. By Feb. 7, 2025, Plaintiffs will file a motion to alter or amend the class certification order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C), and FCA US will file a motion for summary judgment; and B. By March 7, 2025, the Parties will file oppositions to any suchmotions; and C. By March 28, 2025, the Parties will file reply briefs in support of any such motions. On Oct. 15, 2024, after submission of the Parties' Joint Status Report, the Court entered the "Order Setting Case Schedule" The Parties have completed the supplemental discovery in accordance with the deadlines of the Court's Order. However, the Parties have conferred and jointly seek an extension of the class certification and briefing deadlines. FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iqkI0V at no extra charge.[CC] GOODRX INC: Westoni Pillbox Alleges Unlawful Price-Fixing Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- WESTONI PILLBOX INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC.; GOODRX HOLDNGS, INC., CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.; And NAVITIJS HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00063 (D. Conn., January 13, 2025) is an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act on behalf of independent pharmacies, arising from an illegal agreement to suppress the prices paid by pharmacy benefit managers to independent pharmacies for generic prescription medication. As part of GoodRx's Integrated Savings Program, each of the PBMs agreed to supply competitively sensitive information to GoodRx and, using that competitively sensitive information, GoodRx works as a common decisionmaker to set the rates for reimbursement by PBMs to independent pharmacies for generic prescription medication. As part of the ISP program, the PBMs, who are horizontal competitors and should be competing in the relevant market to provide the best prices possible, agree not to bid against each other for the prices that they will pay pharmacies for generic prescription medication. As a result of this alleged conduct, independent pharmacies suffer economically in the form of lower rebates and rates of reimbursement for generic prescription medication from third-party payors, asserts the complaint. The scheme's participants benefit as follows: (1) GoodRx benefits through a cut of each transaction made through the ISP program (approximately $5 per transaction, leading to what GoodRx calls a "$200 million growth opportunity") and (2) the PBMs neutralize horizontal competition in the relevant market between each other, says the complaint. Plaintiff Westoni Pillbox is an independent pharmacy. GoodRx, Inc. provides drug price comparison and pharmacy information services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Cheverie. Esq Alexander S. Lovejoy, Esq. ROBERT M. CHEVERIE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 333 East River Dr., Suite 101 East Hartford, CT 06108 Telephone: (860) 290-9610 E-mail: dcheverie@cheverielaw.com alovejoy@cheverielaw.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com byagman@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWTTZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com GREAT MOUNTAIN: Faces Hu Suit Over Kitchen Staff's Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Zhansheng Hu, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT MOUNTAIN INC, GREAT MOUNTAIN 2 INC d/b/a CHONGQING HOT POT, LAOZAO HOTPOT LLC d/b/a CHONGQING LAO ZAO, YOZ SHANGHAI INC d/b/a YOZI DUCK NOODLE SOUP, MING LIN, ZHI LIN, FANG YI HE, "JOHN" YIN, "JOHN" FAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08580-DG-RML (E.D.N.Y., December 18, 2024) is an action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself as well as other employees similarly situated, against Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various willfull and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime compensation, (2) unpaid spread-of-hours premium, (3) up to $5,000 per Plaintiff for Defendants' failure to provide wage notice detailing rates of pay and payday, (4) up to $5,000 per Plaintiff for Defendants' failure to provide a paystub that accurately and truthfully lists employee's hours along with the employee's name, employer's name, employer's address and telephone number, employee's rate or rates of pay, any deductions made from employee's wages, any allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage, and the employee's gross and net wages for each pay day, (5) liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid "spread of hours" premium, unpaid overtime in the amount of one hundred percent under New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, (6) prejudgment interest provided by NYLL, (7) post-judgment interest, and (8) attorney's fees and costs. The suit further seeks compensatory and punitive damages, proximately resulting from Defendants' violations of Plaintiff's rights pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and under the New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Humans Rights Law. Plaintiff Hu was employed by the Defendants to work at their restaurant located at 3704 Prince Street, Flushing, New York from December 6, 2021 until October 15, 2024. Great Mountain Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yubo Li, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 HCF MANAGEMENT: Fails to Safeguard Employees' Info, Apthorp Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSE APTHORP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCF MANAGEMENT INC., and HCF OF CORRY, INC., doing business as CORRY MANOR, Case No. 3:25-cv-00085 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 16, 2025) sues HCF for failing to carry out its duty to safeguard sensitive Private Information and provide adequate data security. On Oct. 3, 2024, HCF discovered suspicious activity on its computer network and prompted an internal investigation that determined on Sept. 17, 2024, HCF suffered a Data Breach incident in which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information systems and databases and stole Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members. The attacker accessed and acquired files in Defendants' computer systems containing unencrypted Private Information of the Plaintiff and Class Members, including their names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, PHI, and other sensitive information. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was accessed and stolen in the Data Breach, the lawsuit says. Starting on Jan. 9, 2025, HCF sent notices to individuals whose information was accessed in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from their Private Information being accessed by cybercriminals, the lawsuit asserts. Plaintiff Apthorp was an employee of HCF from 2017-18 and received HCF's Data Breach Notice. HCF is a group of affiliated healthcare companies specializing in skilled nursing, rehabilitation, and assisted living facilities with more than two dozen locations across Ohio and Pennsylvania and headquartered in Lima, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Mohammed A. Rathur, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com mrathur@caffertyclobes.com HEALTH CARE: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Rutherford ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, and JOHNNY RUTHERFORD ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to stay briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until the Court: -- rules on Defendants' pending motions to dismiss and motion to strike, and -- enters a case management order. Health Care Service is a customer-owned health insurer. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GqEQx3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Auerbach, Esq. Christy S. McCann, Esq. BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN, P.C. 201 West Railroad Street, Suite 300 Missoula, MT 59802 Telephone: (406) 728-1694 Facsimile: (406) 728-5475 E-mail: daniel@bkbh.com christy@bkbh.com - and - Martin J. Bishop, Esq. Allessandra P. Allegretto, Esq. William J. Sheridan, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606-7507 Telephone: (312) 207-1000 Facsimile: (312) 207-6400 E-mail: mbishop@reedsmith.com aallegretto@reedsmith.com wsheridan@reedsmith.com HUDSON COVE: Al-Nahhas Sues Over Illegal Tribal Lending Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- EIDO AL-NAHHAS, MARY KEETEN, and JESSICA BUCKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HUDSON COVE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; DAVID WU; FREDERICK WANG; HUDSON COVE CREDIT OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND, LP; HUDSON COVE CREDIT OPPORTUNITY FUND, LP; HUDSON COVE CREDIT OPPORTUNITY FUND, LTD.; RC ABL FUND LP; HUDSON COVE CREDIT GP, LLC; STEVEN PASKO; JOSHUA WANDER; and JOHN DOES 1-15, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00671 (N.D. Ill., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and common law conspiracy. The case arises from the Defendants' engagement in a tribal lending scheme called ZocaLoans wherein non-tribal payday lenders and their business partners use Indian tribes as a vehicle to originate illegal loans on the theory that the loans are subject exclusively to tribal law, and the lender entitled to sovereign immunity. The Defendants knowingly maintained an interest in, participated in the operation of, reinvested in, and conspired with other members of the ZocaLoans enterprise to profit from usurious loans. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to recover all amounts paid on their and other Class members' loans, as well as their costs and attorneys' fees, says the suit. Hudson Cove Capital Management, LLC is a portfolio management services based in New Jersey. Hudson Cove Credit Opportunity Master Fund, LP is a credit management company based in New Jersey. Hudson Cove Credit Opportunity Fund, LP is a credit management company based in New Jersey. Hudson Cove Credit Opportunity Fund, Ltd. is a credit management company based in New Jersey. RC ABL Fund LP is a credit management company based in New Jersey. Hudson Cove Credit GP, LLC is a credit management company based in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Mark R. Miller, Esq. Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq. WALLACEMILLER 150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 261-6193 Facsimile: (312) 275-8174 Email: eaw@wallacemiller.com mrm@wallacemiller.com mjg@wallacemiller.com INARI MEDICAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Stryker ------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Inari Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: NARI), relating to the proposed merger with Stryker. Under the terms of the agreement, Stryker will acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of Inari Medical for $80 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on February 18, 2025. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/inari-medical-inc-nari/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Discover Financial Services (NYSE: DFS), relating to its proposed merger with Capital One Financial Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, DFS shareholders are expected to receive 1.0192 shares of Capital One per share they own. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 18, 2025. Click link for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/discover-financial-services. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Liberty Broadband Corporation (NASDAQ: LBRDA, LBRDK, LBRDP), relating to the proposed merger with Charter Communications, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Liberty Broadband common stockholders will receive 0.236 of a share of Charter common stock per share of Liberty Broadband common stock they own. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 26, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/liberty-broadband-corporation-lbrda-lbrdk-lbrdp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCRN), relating to the proposed merger with Aya Healthcare. Under the terms of the agreement, shares of Cross Country will be converted into the right to receive $18.61 in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 28, 2025. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cross-country-healthcare-inc-ccrn/. 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 any of the above listed companies 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 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] IRVING FARM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Trippett Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Irving Farm Coffee Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00269 (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against Irving Farm Coffee Co. for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.irvingfarm.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that Irvingfarm.com contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible dropdown menus, the lack of navigation links, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Irving Farm Coffee Co.'s policies, practices, and procedures so that its 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. Irving Farm Coffee Co., Inc. operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view different types of coffee and branded merchandise.[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 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com J.E.T. LIMOUSINES: Fails to Properly Pay Chauffeurs, Reynolds Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL REYNOLDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.E.T. LIMOUSINES AND TRANSPORTATION, LLP and WILLIAM JINKS, in his individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00190-DLR (D. Ariz., January 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages owed to employees, including overtime and tips, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Arizona Wage Statutes, and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act. Mr. Reynolds worked for the Defendants as a chauffeur from December 2020 to October 2024. J.E.T. Limousines and Transportation, LLP is a chauffeur transportation company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sandra L. Jonas, Esq. Shifa Alkhatib, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS 1 N. 1st Street, Suite 711 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (480) 896-2636 Email: sjonas@hkm.com salkhatib@hkm.com KNIGHT SACRAMENTO: Faces Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- A report from www.bamlawca.com states that a recently filed class action alleges Knight Group violated labor law, leaving Californian workers with wage and hour concerns. The Case: Michelle Phan vs. Knight Sacramento The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California The Case No.: 24CV016958 The Plaintiff: Michelle Phan vs. Knight Sacramento The Plaintiff, Michelle Phan, filed a class action. Eligible class members are those employed by Knight Group as non-exempt, exempt, piece-rate-based, and/or commission-based employees in California from August 27, 2020, to the present. Some of these employees were allegedly entitled to additional hourly compensation to compensate for time spent performing any non-sales-related duties directed by Knight Group during their work shifts. Some employees are also due one hour of pay for their missed rest periods. The Defendant: Michelle Phan vs. Knight Sacramento The defendant, Knight Sacramento, operated car dealerships. The class action claims they violated multiple labor laws with standard operating practices that resulted in: -- failing to pay minimum wage -- failing to provide workers with rest periods -- failing to provide workers with meal breaks -- failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses -- failing to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements -- failing to provide employees with wages when due Do California Workers Get Rest Periods and Meal Breaks? Yes, California employees should receive rest periods and meal breaks. If your employer does not offer you meal breaks and rest periods: -- Understand Your Rights: Familiarize yourself with California labor laws regarding meal and rest breaks to understand what is owed to you. -- Keep Records: Document all instances where breaks were denied or cut short. -- Report Violations: Inform your HR department or supervisor about the missed breaks and request compliance with the law. -- Join the Class Action: If a class action is already in progress, consider joining it to address the violations collectively. -- Find an Attorney: Talk to an employment law attorney about your legal options. The Case: Michelle Phan vs. Knight Sacramento The case, Michelle Phan vs. Knight Sacramento, is currently pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California. If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago. [GN] LEWIS AND CLARK: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Unsworth ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA UNSWORTH, MICHAEL RAMONE, CHRISTOPHER POTTER, THERESE COOPER, and CHARLES SANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE, Case No. 3:24-cv-00614-SB (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie Beckerman entered an order certifying Settlement Class in this matter defined as follows: "All individuals whose Personal Information may have been compromised in the Data Breach. All members of the Settlement Class who do not opt-out of the settlement shall be referred to as Settlement Class Members." The Settlement Class includes approximately 48,799 people. The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) all Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class; (ii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement (including any members of the Court's staff assigned to this case); (iii) Defendant's officers and directors, and (iv) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel: Lisa Unsworth, Michael Ramone, Christopher Potter, Therese Cooper, and Charles Sanderson are hereby provisionally designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held at 9:30 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time on Monday, June 2, 2025. Lewis & Clark is a private liberal arts college in Portland, Oregon. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g33TKp at no extra charge.[CC] LLR INC: Van Bid to Alter Order Denying Class Cert Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE VAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LLR, INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe; and LULAROE, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00197-SLG (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge Sharon Gleason entered an order declining to allow leave for Ms. Van to move to alter the order denying class certification or file another motion for class certification. Ms. Van asserts that the order denying class certification at Docket 203 should be revisited because "such a significant decision in this case should not rely on a legal issue that was not fully briefed, and this Court should take a second look at the predominance and standing issue after adequate presentation of the issue by the parties." Additionally, Ms. Van asserts that their "renewed motion eliminated the discounts discussed by the Ninth Circuit." This reiterates an argument that she raised in her renewed motion for class certification and that the Court rejected. The Court concluded that "discounts were not consistently reflected on invoices or provided in the same ways to all customers. As a result, there appears to be no means of common proof that would allow LLR to litigate whether an individual class member has standing and may recover damages." Ultimately, Ms. Van fails to demonstrate a basis to alter the prior order and reiterates arguments she previously made. LLR is a private equity firm investing in technology and healthcare businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t4cfGp at no extra charge.[CC] MAMA TIGRE: Thompson Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN THOMPSON on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. A MAYAN, LLC T/A MAMA TIGRE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01495-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying a Collective Action under Section 216(b) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to include Plaintiff and all individuals Defendant employed to perform "server," "bartender," "to-go," "food runner," "expeditor," or "runner" employment duties within Defendant's Mama Tigre Restaurant during the period Aug. 26, 2021, through the present ("the FLSA Class"); 2. certifying a Federal Rule 23 Class Action for the prosecution of claims arising under the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA") to include Plaintiff and all individuals Defendant employed to perform "server," "bartender," "to-go," "food runner," "expeditor," or "runner" employment duties within Defendant's Mama Tigre Restaurant during the period Aug. 26, 2021, through the date of final disposition of the action ("the VWPA Class"); 3. designating Plaintiff as the Class Representative on behalf of the VWPA Class; 4. designating Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. and the law firm Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC as Class Counsel on behalf of the VWPA Class; Mama Tigre is a Mexican restaurant infused with an array of spices from India. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jo1ZV2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com MDL 2904: Class Settlement in Opiate Litigation Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Dan Aaron Polster entered an order granting Third Party Payor Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement, and award of attorneys' fees and expenses and settlement class representative service awards. The Court grants the motion to certify the following Settlement class: "All entities that paid and / or were reimbursed for (i) opioid prescription drugs manufactured, marketed, sold, distributed, or dispensed by any of the Defendants and/or Opioid Supply Chain Members for purposes other than resale and / or paid or incurred costs for treatment related to the misuse, addiction, and /or overdose of opioid drugs, on behalf of individual beneficiaries, insureds, and/or members during the time period from Jan. 1, 1996, to the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval order." The Court overrules United Health's objection to the Settlement for the reasons stated on the record during the Fairness Hearing held on Jan. 13,2025. Also, the Court dismisses the actions coordinated under MDL No. 2804 and all claims contained therein. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=myBiUo at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Court Enters Case Management Order in Yoon ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY YOON, on behalf of alleged class, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-02612-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nathanael Cousins entered a case management order as follows: Serve initial disclosures FRCP 26(a)(1) by Jan. 17, 2025 File proposed protective order for discovery, if one is desired, by Feb. 21, 2025 File proposed ESI protocol, if one is desired, by Feb. 21, 2025 Parties file joint proposed order with proposed case schedule through class certification, by Feb. 21, 2025. Meta to answer complaint: March 24, 2025 Next CMC April 30, 2025 10:00 a.m. by Zoom video; joint update due April 23. Meta operates as a social technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8gDMkT at no extra charge.[CC] METLIFE GROUP: Class Settlement in Kohari Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rita Kohari, John Radolec, and Mohani Jaikaran, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the MetLife 401(k) Plan (f/k/a the Savings and Investment Plan for Employees of Metropolitan Life and Participating Affiliates), v. MetLife Group, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the MetLife Group Benefit Plans Investment Advisory Committee, the Employee Benefits Committee of MetLife Group, Inc., and John and Jane Does 1–20, Case No. 1:21-cv-06146-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an order granting the motion for final approval, and granting the motion for attorneys' fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF No. 128 and 132. Public policy supports awarding the requested fee. Plaintiffs' counsels' application for attorneys' fees in the amount of 33 1/3% of the settlement fund is granted. The incentive awards requested are in line with or less than others awarded in this Circuit. Therefore, the Court grants the requests for incentive awards in the amount of $15,000 for Rita Kohari, John Radolec and Mohani Jaikaran. The proposed Settlement Agreement defines the "Settlement Class" as "All participants and beneficiaries of the MetLife 401(k) Plan who were invested in the MetLife Index Funds at any time on or after July 19, 2015, through Dec. 31, 2021, excluding any persons with responsibility for the Plan's investment or administrative Functions." Members of the Settlement Class will be entitled to a share of the Gross Settlement Amount, that is $4,500,000.00. MetLife provides individual insurance, employee benefits, and financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dTbNhc at no extra charge.[CC] MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Silva Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ NATHAN C. SILVA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANJAY MEHROTRA, RICHARD M. BEYER, LYNN A. DUGLE, STEVE GOMO, LINNIE HAYNESWORTH, MARY PAT MCCARTHY, BOB SWAN, MARYANN WRIGHT, and MARK MURPHY, Defendants, and MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-80098 (S.D. Fla., January 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duties, insider selling, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in connection with Micron Technology, Inc.'s 2023 proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to trade common stock at artificially inflated prices between at least September 28, 2023, and December 18, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants made or permitted others to make false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Defendants did not establish or maintain sufficient internal controls; (ii) demand for Micron's products in consumer markets, especially the company's NAND products, had significantly deteriorated; (iii) accordingly, the Defendants had overstated the extent to which demand for Micron's products had recovered, particularly in consumer markets and for its NAND products, and/or had overstated the sustainability of demand for such products, as well as the normalization of inventory for such products; and (iv) as a result, the company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, Micron's stock price fell $16.81 per share, or 16.18 percent, to close at $87.09 per share on December 19, 2024. Micron Technology, Inc. is a manufacturer of memory and storage products based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Cook, Esq. COOK LAW, PA 610 East Zack Street, Suite 505 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 489-1001 Email: wcook@cooklawfla.com - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Vincent A. Licata, Esq. RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 683-3516 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com tjm@rl-legal.com vl@rl-legal.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Shopping Browser Extension ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Brodiski, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00112 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 16, 2025) alleges that Microsoft Shopping browser extension is designed to steal commissions from online marketers, including website operators, online publications, YouTubers, bloggers, influencers, and other types of content creators. The Plaintiff contends that Microsoft programmed the Microsoft Shopping browser extension to systematically appropriate commissions that belong to influencers like Plaintiff and Class members. It does so by substituting its own affiliate marketing cookie in place of the online marketer's affiliate marketing cookie, and this happens even though the customer used the online marketer's specific affiliate web link to access the website on which they purchased the product or service. Further, the Microsoft Shopping browser extension is purposely designed to exploit the last-click attribution process, and it achieves this by producing pop-ups during the checkout process in order to simulate referral clicks, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff was harmed by Microsoft, via the Microsoft Shopping browser extension, which deprived her of referral fees and sales commissions she is rightfully entitled to as the generator of those referrals and sales. Ms. Brodiski is a content creator that has earned commission payments from affiliate marketing links she shared on her social media pages (@jesbro96). In the past year, Ms. Brodiski has received $20,000 in commission payments from products purchased via her affiliate marketing links. Microsoft is a developer of computer software, operating systems, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Joan Pradhan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com jpradhan@tousley.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com MONOPRICE INC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONOPRICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00599 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 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 website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.monoprice.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Monoprice, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Settlement Deal in Guerrero Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY RAMIREZ CRUZ GUERRERO and CRISTOPHER ISMAEL RAMIREZ MOREL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEM INC. and CSS BUILDING SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-09194-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an order granting the motion for final approval of settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 99 and close the case. The proposed Settlement Agreement defines "Class Members" as Plaintiffs Danny Ramirez Cruz Guerrero and Cristopher Ismael Ramirez Morel, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and other individuals employed by CSS who performed cleaning duties at Montefiore facilities at any time from Mar. 13, 2016, to Oct. 27, 2022. Class Members will be entitled to a share of the Net Settlement Fund, which is the Settlement Amount, that is $1,800,000.00, minus the Claim Administrator's fees and costs, Court-approved attorneys' fees and costs for class counsel, and service awards to named Plaintiffs. In light of the Goldberg factors, the Court finds the attorneys' fee award requested to be fair and reasonable. In sum, Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees in the amount of 33 1/3% of the settlement fund is granted. The Court grants the motion for costs in the amount of $5,149.75. The Plaintiffs also request reimbursement of administrative expenses in the amount of $17,802, which are to be deducted from the Settlement Amount. The Court finds this amount to be reasonable and within the range charged by settlement administrators in similar cases and therefore approves these expenses and orders that $17,802 be deducted from the Settlement Amount. The Court also grants the requests for service awards for the named Plaintiffs, in the amount of $15,000 for Cruz Guerrero and $10,000 for Ramirez Morel. On Sept. 9, 2024, the undersigned granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On Dec. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for final approval of the proposed class action settlement. Montefiore is an academic health system. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EEeaOI at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL NOTARY: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Turner Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TERESA TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00334 (C.D. Cal., January 13, 2025) is an action to redress Defendant's practice of selling, renting, transmitting, and/or otherwise disclosing to Meta, records containing the personal information of Plaintiff and each of its customers, along with detailed information revealing the titles and subject matter of the videos and other audiovisual materials purchased by each customer in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the information Defendant disclosed (and continues to disclose) to Meta via the Meta Pixel includes the customer's Facebook ID and the specific title of prerecorded videos that each of its customers purchased on Defendant's www.nationalnotary.org website. An FID is a unique sequence of numbers linked to a specific Meta profile. Accordingly, on behalf of herself and the putative Class members, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendant for intentionally and unlawfully disclosing her and Putative Class members' private video information to Meta. Headquartered in Chatsworth, California, National Notary Association is the largest and oldest organization in the United States serving notaries and training persons to be notaries through certifications, trainings, seminars, conferences, and printed and online educational materials that accompany these programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 535 Mission Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com NEW YORK LIFE: Faces Dickman Class Suit Over Disability Insurance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Curtis A. Dickman, M.D., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New York Life Insurance Company, New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation, The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, and Unum Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-00138-DWL (D. Ariz., Jan. 16, 2025) is a class action arising from the false and deceptive marketing of disability insurance. The Defendants solicit consumers to purchase disability insurance that purportedly pays benefits to eligible insureds to age 65. But in reality, the Defendants do not pay benefits through eligible insureds' 65th birthdays. Instead, the Defendants only pay benefits up to an insured's policy anniversary date. This means that eligible insureds whose policy anniversaries predate their 65th birthdays are short-changed disability benefits they were promised up until age 65, the suit alleges. The Defendants materially breached the agreement and related representations by misrepresenting the term of the benefits to be provided, and/or by not paying benefits to each putative Class member's birth date through which they should have received disability income benefit payments, added the suit. The Plaintiff is one such insured. He was promised, applied for, and received a disability insurance policy that promised disability benefits to age 65. After Plaintiff suffered a disability, the Defendants made disability payments under the policy. However, prior to his 65th birthday in August 2024, the Defendant wrongly and unreasonably refused to pay benefits after Plaintiff's policy anniversary date in June 2024. The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and declaratory relief on behalf of all persons who paid for disability insurance policies from Defendants but did not receive benefits through their turning age 65. The Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a declaration of entitlement to disability benefits for eligible insureds through their 65th birthdays, reformation, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, violation of state consumer protection laws, and insurer bad faith. New York Life advertises, sells, and provides a variety of insurance products to consumers, including disability insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 435-1300 E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com david@honiklaw.com - and - Ty D. Frankel, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com patti@frankelsyverson.com NIKE RETAIL: Court Extends Time to Complete Discovery ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones, et al., v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03343 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 6, 2022), the Hon. Judge Nina R. Morrison entered an order extending the time to complete discovery: The parties are to electronically file a joint proposed pretrial order in compliance with the district judge's individual rules, signed by counsel for each party, on or before June 2, 2025. The Jan. 14, 2024, final conference is adjourned to June 5, 2025 at 12:00 p.m. Conference call instructions will be provided in advance of the conference date. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. NIKE Retail Services, Inc. was founded in 1985. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of men's, women's and children's footwear.[CC] OE FEDERAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jimenez Due July 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL JIMENEZ JR, MARK HENDREN, and ERICA JARAMILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:24-cv-02746-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered a Scheduling Order as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Deadline to add parties or Aug. 23, 2024 Aug. 23, 2024 amend the pleadings: Plaintiff's class action Apr. 18, 2025 Oct. 20, 2025 expert disclosures due: Defendant's class action June 2, 2025 Dec. 2, 2025 expert disclosures due: Class certification motion July 16, 2025 Jan. 16, 2026 Due: Class certification Aug. 20, 2025 Feb. 20, 2026 opposition due: Class certification reply Sept. 17, 2025 Mar. 17, 2026 Due: OE Federal offers affordable financial products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zzyYsC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS AND GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam C. Smith, Esq. MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC 600 Superior Avenue, Suite 2100 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 348-5407 E-mail: acsmith@mcdonaldhopkins.com - and - Matthew L. Eanet, Esq. EANET, PC 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (310) 775-2495 E-mail: matt@eanetpc.com OLD NORTHERN: Faces Riley Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMANIE RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLD NORTHERN BOULEVARD RESTAURANT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00577 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, 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 website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://kymarestaurants.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inaccurate drop-down menus, unclear labels for interactive elements, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Old Northern Boulevard Restaurant, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com ONEBLOOD INC: Thrash Alleges Unauthorized Access of Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMY THRASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONEBLOOD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00096 (M.D. Fla., January 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems following a data breach occurred between July 14 to July 29, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. OneBlood Inc. is an organization that provides medical and dental billing services to companies, with its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com PAYPAL INC: Manipulates Users' Network Transmissions, Bauer Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KARIN BAUER, ANGELA STURGES, and CHRISTIE SHINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PAYPAL, INC. and PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00580-SVK (N.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2025) contends that, when a consumer uses an affiliate link and subsequently uses Honey to search for coupons, Honey replaces the Affiliate Marketer's cookie with its own, effectively taking credit for and any stealing any resulting commission from the sale. The suit alleges that PayPal has been using the Honey browser extension to manipulate users' network transmissions to allow PayPal to take credit for sales commissions it did not earn. When a user activates the Honey extension during checkout, Honey replaces tracking tags that point to Affiliate Marketers as the source of the referral with its own tracking tags. This manipulation ensures that the commission for the purchase is redirected to PayPal, even if an Affiliate Marketer's link was the original referral source, the suit adds. The Plaintiffs bring this proposed consumer class action individually and on behalf of all other members of the Classes, for damages and injunctive relief, seeking an immediate end to PayPal's abusive practices and for recompense for the harm that has already been done. Plaintiff Bauer is an Affiliate Marketer and shared her affiliate links on Facebook and LinkedIn. In the past year, the Plaintiff Bauer received only $100.00 in commissions for the affiliate marketing she has done. Plaintiff Sturges is an Affiliate Marketer and used affiliate links to promote products on warrior.com, olsp.com, and hotmart.com. In the past year, the Plaintiff Sturges received only $50.00 in commissions for the affiliate marketing she has done. PayPal, Inc. provides financial transaction processing services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 - #3425 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. Colin A. Brown, Esq. Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com cbrown@zlk.com atolentino@zlk.com PEDIATRIC HOME: Faces Pfeifer Suit Over Clients' Leaked Info ------------------------------------------------------------ CHERI PFEIFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEDIATRIC HOME RESPIRATORY SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a PEDIATRIC HOME SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-00247-KMM-ECW (D. Minn., January 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems following a data breach occurred between November 1 and November 8, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Pediatric Home Respiratory Services, LLC, doing business as Pediatric Home Services, is a healthcare services provider based in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue S., Ste. 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com PIH HEALTH: Duran Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------- RAMONA DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIH HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-10803-CAS-MAR (C.D. Cal., December 16, 2024) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated patients of Defendant totaling approximately seventeen million individuals. The complaint asserts that the Defendant was a victim of hacking incident which comes just four years after PIH experienced another data breach in 2020 when a phishing event affected more than 200,000. Rather than learn from that event, PIH appears to have failed again to improve its cybersecurity program to meet industry standards. Along with other private information, the data breach reportedly included 8.1 million "medical episodes," as well as treatment information (including for cancer patients), patient home addresses, phone numbers, employment information, and medical expenses. Though little is known about the data breach at this time, what is known establishes that Defendant PIH failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures, notwithstanding its recent attack that put it on notice of the risk of data breaches and the harms associated with them, says the suit. Because of Defendant's failures, Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered a severe invasion of privacy and must now face a substantially increase in identity theft and fraud for years to come. PIH Health Inc. is a healthcare corporation that provides comprehensive medical services to its patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Pettinger Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT PETTINGER, on behalf of his minor child, B.P. and KYLIE STOWE, on behalf of her minor child, Z.S., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00159-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal., January 13, 2025) arises from an alleged December 28, 2024 data breach where cybercriminals bypassed Defendant's inadequate security systems to access Plaintiff and other consumers' sensitive information in its computer systems. On information and belief, as of January 12, 2025, the Defendant has not yet notified Class Members, including Plaintiffs, about the widespread data breach through a formal breach letter and instead has only notified its clients who in turn, alerted Plaintiffs and the Class of the breach via email. PowerSchool continues to delay formally informing Class Members even though Plaintiffs and thousands of Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, says the suit. The Defendant's alleged failure to timely detect and report the data breach made its consumers vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their sensitive information.    Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be based on information in Defendant's possession.  PowerSchool Group LLC provides cloud-based software for K-12 education in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Martinez-Turnbow Balks at Unprotected Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE MARTINEZ-TURNBOW, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor child, John Doe, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00165-DC-JDP (E.D. Cal., January 13, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's minor child's and other similarly affected persons including students' parents' and Defendant's employees' personally identifiable information including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, medical information, and other personally identifiable information from cybercriminals. On or about January 7, 2025, the Defendant confirmed that it suffered a cybersecurity incident that allowed a threat actor to steal the personal information of students and teachers from school districts using its platform. PowerSchool's primary customers are schools and school districts and by persuading those customers to implement its products in schools, PowerSchool gains virtually unfettered access to the data of the children who attend those schools and their parents, including highly sensitive private information. As a direct and proximate result of the data breach, the Plaintiff, her minor child and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their health privacy, private information being disseminated on the dark web, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives, says the suit. PowerSchool is an EdTech platform specializing in data collection, storage, and analytics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara Beth Craig, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Ste. 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 766-3544 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: scraig@peifferwolf.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 282-4806 E-mail: atate@peifferwolf.com PRIMED MANAGEMENT: Faces Demingo Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY M. DEMINGO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. PRIMED MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, HILL HEALTH, a business entity of unknown form, HILL HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, a business entity of unknown form, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV102115 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., December 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages at the correct rate; failed to pay double time wages at the correct rate; failed to pay overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; failed to provide with meal periods; failed to provide with rest periods; failed to pay premium wages for missed meal and rest periods; failed to provide with accurate written wage statements; failed to reimburse with necessary business expenditures; and failed to pay all their final wages following separation of employment. The Defendants' unlawful conduct as alleged in this complaint also amounts to and constitutes unfair competition within the meaning of Business and Professions Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee during the relevant and statutory periods. Primed Management Consulting Services, Inc. provides healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: d.yeremian@d.law d.keledjian@d.law RAINBOW USA: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAINBOW USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00658 (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.rainbowshops.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Rainbow USA Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal RICHMOND FITNESS: Sends Unwanted Marketing Messages, McGonigle Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW JAMES MCGONIGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICHMOND FITNESS, INC. d/b/a AMERICAN FAMILY FITTNESS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00103-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the practice of transmitting text messages to the cellular telephone number of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its products or services without prior express consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered actual harm including invasion of privacy, intrusion into their lives, and a private nuisance, says the suit. Richmond Fitness, Inc., doing business as American Family Fitness, is a fitness center owner and operator in Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Robinson, Esq. 319 N. Piedmont St., #1 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 789-4800 Email: wprlegal@gmail.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Quinn Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info -------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD QUINN and MONIQUE LESLIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RICHMOND UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00357 (E.D.N.Y., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, declaratory judgment, and violation of the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems following a data breach occurred on May 6, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Richmond University Medical Center is a national healthcare facility and teaching institution in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H. Street NE, Suite 302, Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq. Samantha Barrett, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Email: bmm@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com mnp@chimicles.com sb@chimicles.com ROCKET MORTGAGE: Appeals Court Dismisses Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Kingsley of National Mortgage Professional reports that Rocket Mortgage (formerly Quicken Loans) earned a hard-fought win in court last week of January following the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' dismissal of the majority of a $10.6 million judgment against the mortgage lender and its affiliate, Amrock LLC (formerly Title Source, soon to be Rocket Close) stemming from a 2012 class-action lawsuit (Phillip Alig vs. Rocket Mortgage LLC) alleging undue influence over appraisals. The Plaintiffs alleged that Rocket Mortgage and Amrock compromised the independence of appraisals by sharing borrowers' home-value estimates from mortgage refinance applications with appraisers -- as was customary prior to post-Great Financial Crisis mortgage reforms -- rendering the "independent" appraisals that the plaintiffs had paid for "worthless." A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding over $10 million in damages, including statutory damages for "unconscionable inducement" and refunds of appraisal fees. The decision encompassed a class of 2,769 West Virginia borrowers who had refinanced their mortgages with Rocket under similar conditions, and thus were assumed to have experienced similar harm. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit initially upheld the class certification and damages. However, the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which clarified that each class member in a class-action lawsuit must demonstrate concrete harm to have standing, the Fourth Circuit's ruling was vacated and remanded for the district court for reconsideration. Language from TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, cited by the Fourth Circuit in dismissing its earlier judgment, captured the high court's belief that "an injury in law is not an injury in fact," observing that "standing is not dispensed in gross." Therefore, the Fourth Circuit ruled, "mere exposure to the borrowers' estimates could only establish potential influence, i.e., a risk of influence, and such a risk cannot be the basis for standing to recover damages under TransUnion." Plaintiffs seeking class-wide relief argued that paying for "independent" appraisals they did not receive constituted harm, but the Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that all class members suffered concrete harm due to the appraisal practices, and the court found no evidence that appraisers were influenced or that the appraisals were factually inaccurate as a result of Rocket's practices. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, however, the portion of the district court's earlier judgment, including damages, on the named plaintiffs' statutory and conspiracy claims, while vacating the portion of the district court's judgment on the merits of the named plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. One judge dissented in the Fourth Circuit's decision, writing, "I believe the plaintiffs in this case -- named and unnamed class members alike -- have made the required showing because they paid for appraisals that the record shows were deficient as a matter of West Virginia law. Accordingly, I would hold the unnamed class members in this case possess Article III standing." Rocket currently seeks dismissal of an appraisal bias lawsuit filed against the company by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in October 2024. In early December 2024, Rocket filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) seeking clarification on appraisal enforcement and regulatory discrepancies. [GN] SAN FRANCISCO HILTON: Bid to Decertify Class in Gonzalez Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS GONZALEZ, et al., v. SAN FRANCISCO HILTON, INC., Case No. 4:14-cv-01523-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order denying Hilton's motion to decertify the class. The Court finds that there is a discrete set of documents depicting the banquet service to customers. Even if Hilton used several different types of contracts, the Court finds that class certification will still provide efficiencies because many customers received the same template documents with identical, or nearly identical, language regarding the service charge. Based on the post-certification discovery, the Court still finds that the efficiencies regarding a limited number of combinations of contractual arrangements dictate the continued appropriateness of class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N8whR5 at no extra charge.[CC] SHED MOVING: Patton Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Shed Movers -------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE PATTON and MALIK ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHED MOVING OF FLORIDA, INC. and NATHAN GARROW, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-00092-PGB-RMN (M.D. Fla., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Patton and Alexander performed shed mover duties for the Defendants from approximately October 2019 through May 2024 and from approximately June 2021 through July 2024, respectively. Shed Moving of Florida, Inc. is a shed mover company in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 Email: kimd@forthepeople.com SPORTY & RICH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agostini Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Sporty & Rich, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00453 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). The Defendant is denying the blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Sporty & Rich provides to their non-disabled customers through https://sportyandrich.com, the suit contends. On Nov. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff came across the Defendant's website, Sportyandrich.com. She was specifically looking for a warm and soft upper garment and was drawn to the Serif Logo Argyle sweater. However, when attempting to make the purchase, she encountered several accessibility issues, such as interactive elements that lacked proper relationships with label elements, leaving her uncertain about their function or purpose. Additionally, the product images had poor and overly similar alternative text, which made it difficult for her to distinguish between them, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Sporty & Rich's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ms. Agostini is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Sporty & Rich offers coats, jackets, knitwear, sweatshirts, shirts, activewear, shorts, footwear, denim, skirts, dresses, hats, jewelry, and many more.[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 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com STIIIZY INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Krauth Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT KRAUTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STIIIZY INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00517 (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around October 10, 2024, to November 10, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Stiiizy Inc. is a cannabis company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com STIIIZY INC: Fasil to Safeguard Employees' Info, Anderson Says -------------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STIIIZY INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00420 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2025) alleges that Stiiizy lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by multiple cybercriminals. The Data Breach has impacted over 380,000 of current and former employees and customers. The Data Breach occurred between Oct. 10, 2024 and Nov. 10, 2024. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to employees' and customers' personally identifiable information, including name, address, date of birth, age, drivers' license number, passport number, photograph, the signatures appearing on a government ID card, medical cannabis cards, transaction histories, and other personal information. On Jan. 8, 2025–almost three months after the Data Breach began– the Defendant finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach. The Plaintiff is now subject to the present and continuing risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from his PII being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties. This injury was worsened by Defendant's failure to inform the Plaintiff about the Data Breach in a timely fashion, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff was a former employee and customer. The Plaintiff is also a data breach victim. Stiiizy is a cannabis retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com TECTA AMERICA: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Pike Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC PIKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TECTA AMERICA CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00767 (N.D. Ill., January 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of bailment, and invasion of privacy/public disclosure of private facts. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems following a data breach between September 20, 2024, and October 2, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Tecta America Corp. is a commercial roofing contractor, with its principal place of business in Rosemont, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com THERAPIE MEDICAL: Bunting Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ RASHETA BUNTING, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THERAPIE MEDICAL (US) INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00193 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against Therapie for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, http//:www.therapieclinic.com/us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff Bunting has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on the website, most recently on December 3, 2024, December 7, 2024 and December 16, 2023 but was unable to do so independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. The access barriers prevent free and full use of Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Therapie's policies, practices, and procedures so that its 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. Therapie Medical (US) Inc. operates the website that offers goods and services such as aesthetic and wellness experiences that include skin treatment, laser hair removal, injectables, and body treatment, amongst many other services as well as the ability to purchase skincare and beauty products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com THOMAS H. LEE: Chickonoski Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------- CHAD ANDREW CHICKONOSKI, CHARLES HENNIG, and MARTIN SANADY, Plaintiffs v. THOMAS H. LEE PARTNERS, L.P., THOMAS J. LEONARD, MICHAEL BELL, DARREN FRIEDMAN, GARY GOTTLIEB, C. MARTIN HARRIS, JOSHUA NELSON, DIANE PATRICK, MEGAN PREINER, SCOTT SPERLING, and JOHN WORKMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2024-1249-MTZ (Del. Ch., December 10, 2024) is a verified class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated former public common stockholders of Agiliti, Inc., asserting breach of fiduciary duty concerning the sale of Agiliti to THL for $10 per share, announced in February 2024. Under CEO Tom Leonard's leadership, Agiliti was sold in 2019 to a THL-sponsored special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), which left THL as Agiliti's majority and controlling stockholder. As a public company with Leonard at the helm, the Company traded as high as $25 per share and consistently traded in the range of $15 to $20 per share. Concurrent with the execution and delivery of the Merger Agreement on February 26, 2024, Leonard entered into an agreement with THL to roll over 892,462 shares into equity of the surviving corporation (the "Rollover Agreement") in lieu of receiving $10 per share. On May 7, 2024, the Merger closed, implying a total enterprise value for the Company of $2.5 billion. The complaint alleges that both the process and price of the Merger were unfair to the Company's public stockholders. As to process, the Special Committee was conflicted, its advisors were conflicted, and the Committee acted with a controlled mindset by: (i) outsourcing critical negotiations to conflicted members of the Board and management, including those related to the selection and compensation of its (conflicted) advisors; (ii) permitting THL to co-opt as its financial advisor; (iii) failing to insist on, or even ask THL for, a majority-of-the-minority vote; and (iv) agreeing to sell the Company during a trough valuation. THL violated its fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Class by causing Agiliti to agree to the Merger through an unfair process at an unfair price, asserts the suit. Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. is a private equity firm headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. Rebecca A. Musarra, Esq. Vivek Upadhya, Esq. Casimir O. Szustak, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 - and - Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. Jackson E. Warren, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 THOMAS H. LEE: Maglione Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------- ERIC M. MAGLIONE, Plaintiff v. THOMAS H. LEE PARTNERS, L.P., THL AGILITI LLC, THOMAS J. LEONARD, SCOTT M. SPERLING, MICHAEL A. BELL, JOSHUA M. NELSON, MEGAN M. PREINER, JOHN L. WORKMAN, DIANE B. PATRICK, GARY L. GOTTLIEB, C. MARTIN HARRIS, DARREN M. FRIEDMAN, AND JAMES B. PEKAREK, CENTERVIEW PARTNERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2024-1248-MTZ (Del. Ch., December 10, 2024) is a verified class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated former public common stockholders of Agiliti, Inc., asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims and aiding and abetting claims against the Defendants, arising from a conflicted controller transaction whereby THL, Agiliti's controlling stockholder, acquired the remaining shares it did not own for $10 per share. Agiliti was created in 2018 following a de-SPAC merger between THL-sponsored Federal Street Acquisition Corp. and a healthcare technology company run by Thomas Leonard, who stayed on as chief executive officer of the post-transaction Company. In January 2023, Leonard, who held millions of dollars in Agiliti equity, stepped down as CEO to work as a "consultant" to THL, while simultaneously remaining on Agiliti's board of directors. His departure as CEO coincided with a post-pandemic slump in the Company's business, as hospitals and government agencies had less need for Agiliti's services, medical equipment leasing slowed, and public health agencies decreased crisis-driven spending. Agiliti's price declined from a pandemic high of $25.66 per share in November 2021 to a low of $15.50 per share in March 2023. As the valley in the Company's performance deepened, THL used the temporary dip in Agiliti's stock price as an opportunity to allow THL to buy the Company for a pittance. By late January 2024, after continued negotiation, Leonard and THL had reached agreement on Leonard's equity, and Leonard allowed the Special Committee to proceed with a deal on the take-private. On January 26, THL submitted a revised bid for $9 -- a dollar less than its November offer. The deal closed in May 2024 after THL approved it in its capacity as Agiliti's controlling stockholder. The Plaintiff therefore brings this action to seek redress for THL's self-interested acquisition of Agiliti based on an unfair Merger process at an unfair price. Because the Special Committee was a sham and there was no majority of the minority vote, the Merger will be subject to the entire fairness standard of review, says the suit. Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. is a private equity firm headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq. Daniel M. Baker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com lindsay@blockleviton.com daniel@blockleviton.com - and - Jason Leviton, Esq. Nathan Abelman, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St. Suite 1860 Boston, MA 021110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 - and - Silpa Maruri, Esq. Vivek Tata, Esq. Brian Campbell, Esq. Shams Hirji, Esq. Silas La Borde, Esq. ELSBERG, BAKER & MARURI, PLLC 1 Penn Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 597-2600 THOMAS H. LEE: SEIU Pension Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------ SEIU PENSION PLANS MASTER TRUST, THOMAS NIGHSONGER, and GEORGE ASSAD, Plaintiffs v. THOMAS H. LEE PARTNERS, L.P., THOMAS LEONARD, DIANE B. PATRICK, GARY GOTTLIEB, SCOTT M. SPERLING, MICHAEL A. BELL, JOSHUA M. NELSON, and MEGAN M. PREINER, Defendants, Case No. 2024-1251-MTZ (Del. Ch., December 10, 2024) is a verified class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated former stockholders of Agiliti, Inc., asserting breaches of fiduciary against the Defendants in connection with THL's May 7, 2024 squeeze out of Agiliti's minority stockholders. This action challenges the fairness of a take-private of Agiliti by its controlling stockholder, THL, for $10.00 per share (the "Squeeze Out"), notes the complaint. The Squeeze Out was not conditioned on a majority of the minority vote and was not approved by a well-functioning, independent special committee. Defendants will therefore bear the burden at trial of proving that the Squeeze Out was entirely fair. They will be unable to meet their burden. The $10 per share Squeeze Out price represented a significant discount to: (i) Agiliti's trading price at virtually all times between its initial public offering and just prior to THL's first offer; and (ii) earlier third-party indications of interest to acquire Agiliti for $16 per share and $20 per share, which THL rejected as inadequate, the complaint relates. The Plaintiffs assert that this case exemplifies that troubling trend, highlighting the harm controllers can inflict on minority stockholders, and underscoring Delaware law's longstanding concern with self-dealing in conflicted transactions. By deliberately avoiding the procedural safeguards established in the case Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp., THL knowingly subjected the transaction to Delaware's rigorous "entire fairness" standard of review. THL's execution of the Squeeze Out through an unfair process at an unfair price harmed Agiliti's minority stockholders. This lawsuit is the minority stockholders' only opportunity to receive a fair price, assert the Plaintiffs. Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. is a private equity firm headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew E. Blumberg, Esq. Benjamin M. Potts, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. Mae Oberste, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 - and - Thomas Curry, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 824 N. Market Street, Suite 1003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 485-0483 E-mail: tcurry@saxenawhite.com TSYS MERCHANT: Class Cert Bid Filing in SBCW Extended to March 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SBCW CONSULTING, INC., v. TSYS MERCHANT SOLUTIONS, LLC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03193-SB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order granting ex parte application to continue deadlines in the case management order as follows: The Plaintiff filed an ex parte application requesting a 45-day continuance of the deadlines in the case management order (CMO) related to its motion for class certification. The Defendants do not oppose such an extension but take issue with Plaintiff's description of their discovery conduct and ask that their time to oppose a motion for class certification be extended. The Court grants the requests as modified in the table below. The parties should not expect any further continuances. Event Proposed Dates Trial: Sept. 15, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Mar. 3, 2025 Opposition to Motion for Mar. 24, 2025 Class Certification: Reply Brief in Support Apr. 4, 2025 of Class Certification: Motion for Class Apr. 25, 2025 Certification Hearing: Expert Discovery Cutoff: May 23, 2025 Settlement Conf. Deadline: June 20, 25 TSYS offers credit card processing and other related services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RJzOLH at no extra charge.[CC] UNCLE CREDIT: Faces Ganjizadeh Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- NOUSHIN GANJIZADEH, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNCLE CREDIT UNION, a California Nonprofit corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV103338 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., December 16, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; failure to pay interest on deposits; and engagement in unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately March of 2024 through approximately June of 2024. Uncle Credit Union is a full service financial institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Paal Bakstad, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com paal@tomorrowlaw.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Jones Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY JONES, through her agent, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 3:19-cv-06999-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her administrative motion to file under seal certain exhibits to Plaintiff's motion to modify class certification order. Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibits 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 to Plaintiff's motion to modify class certification order and portions of Plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of her motion to modify class certification order that describe the confidential content of and/or quote from the sealed Exhibits, pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(d), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Caroline E. Reynolds in support of Plaintiff's administrative motion to seal. United Behavioral was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hJmFyp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 7 West Figueroa Street, Suite 300 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (310) 598-3690, x 101 Facsimile: (888) 975-1957 E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com - and - Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 E-mail: creynolds@zuckerman.com dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com WELLS FARGO: SEB Investment Seeks to Seal Class Cert Material ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, and WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, CHARLES W. SCHARF, KLEBER R. SANTOS, and CARLY SANCHEZ, Case No. 3:22-cv-03811-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to consider whether Defendants' material should be sealed in regard to Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, appoint class representatives, and appoint Class Counsel and certain exhibits. The Plaintiffs do not maintain a claim of confidentiality over any portion of this administrative motion. However, portions of the Motion contain descriptions of and citations to information that Defendants have designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" and Exhibits 2-20 to the Motion are documents that Defendants have designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" under the Stipulated Protective Order. The Plaintiffs reserve the right to challenge Defendants' confidentiality designations, including under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(4), on any available grounds. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gtwpPS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory Castaldo, Esq. Sharan Nirmul, Esq. Joshua A. Materese, Esq. Evan Hoey, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com skaplan@ktmc.com gcastaldo@ktmc.com snirmul@ktmc.com jmaterese@ktmc.com ehoey@ktmc.com - and – David R. Kaplan, Esq. Marti Worms, Esq. Emily R. Bishop, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Alexander L. Strohmeyer, Esq. Dianne M. Pitre, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 505 Lomas Santa Fe Dr., Suite 180 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Telephone: (858) 997-0860 Facsimile: (858) 369-0096 E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com mworms@saxenawhite.com ebishop@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com astrohmeyer@saxenawhite.com dpitre@saxenawhite.com - and – Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Bonni S. Jensen, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com bonni@robertdklausner.com WELLS FARGO: Stipulation to Extend Page Limits in Henzel OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henzel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (J&J Investment Litigation), Case No. 2:22-cv-00529-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the Court entered an order granting the parties' stipulation to extend page limits and briefing schedule for motions for class certification and summary judgment: (a) Opposition briefs to motions for summary judgment and class certification shall be filed within 40 days of the filing of the motion; (b) Replies in support of motions for summary judgment and class certification shall be filed within 20 days of the filing of the opposition brief; (c) Wells Fargo's opposition brief to the motion for class certification shall be no more than 36 pages and Class Plaintiffs' reply shall be no more than 18 pages; and (d) Initial and opposition briefs for motions for summary judgment shall be no more than 40 pages. Wells Fargo offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dteBtl at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph G. Went, Esq. Sydney R. Gambee, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor Las Vegas, NV 89134 Telephone: (702) 669-4600 Facsimile: (702) 669-4650 E-mail: jgwent@hollandhart.com srgambee@hollandhart.com - and - K. Issac deVyver, Esq. Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq. Anthony Q. Le, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 844-9944 Facsimile: (415) 844.9922 E-mail: KdeVyver@mcguirewoods.com ABaiardo@mcguirewoods.com ALe@mcguirewoods.com WELLS FARGO: Stipulation to Extend Page Limits in Winkler OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEOFF WINKLER, as court-appointed receiver for J&J Consulting Services, Inc., an Alaska corporation; J&J Consulting Services, Inc., a Nevada corporation; and J and J Purchasing LLC, Florida limited liability company, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-00703-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the Court entered an order granting the Parties' Stipulation to extend page limits and briefing schedule for motions for class certification and summary judgment. (a) Opposition briefs to motions for summary judgment and class certification shall be filed within 40 days of the filing of the motion; (b) Replies in support of motions for summary judgment and class certification shall be filed within 20 days of the filing of the opposition brief; (c) Wells Fargo's opposition brief to the motion for class certification shall be no more than 36 pages and Class Plaintiffs' reply shall be no more than 18 pages; and (d) Initial and opposition briefs for motions for summary judgment shall be no more than 40 pages. Wells Fargo offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Z53Dw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph G. Went, Esq. Sydney R. Gambee, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor Las Vegas, NV 89134 Telephone: (702) 669-4600 Facsimile: (702) 669-4650 E-mail: jgwent@hollandhart.com srgambee@hollandhart.com - and - K. Issac deVyver, Esq. Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq. Anthony Q. Le, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 844-9944 Facsimile: (415) 844.9922 E-mail: KdeVyver@mcguirewoods.com ABaiardo@mcguirewoods.com ALe@mcguirewoods.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 ***