/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250206.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, February 6, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 27
Headlines
101 W 55 REST: Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
A FEI: Bid for Class Certification in Yang Suit Due Feb. 27
ALLSTATE CORP: Tracks Customers' Data, Eppley Suit Alleges
ARZZ INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Says
AT&T SERVICES: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
AVANGRID INC: Faces Class Action Over Acquisition of Iberdrola
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Warshaw Suit Over RESPA Violations
BLACKHAWK MINING: Must Pay Scoop Operators Proper Wages, Moore Says
CAPITAL ONE: Faces GamersNexus Suit Over Referral-Stealing Scheme
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Gandillon Suit Over Referral-Stealing Scheme
CARRUTH COMPLIANCE: Ringer Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
CHRISTIE BUSINESS: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
CONNECTONCALL.COM LLC: Neary Files Suit Over Data Breach
ELEVANCE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Coordinators' OT Wages, Johnson Says
EQUAL EXCHANGE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 17
ESSA PHARMA: Faces Groll Suit Over Drop in Share Price
EVERGY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Henry County Contamination Claims
FABLETICS INC: Othman Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
FJALLRAVEN USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Alleges
FORD MOTOR: Bid for Class Cert. in Nelson Suit Due Feb. 27
FORD MOTOR: Court Amends Nov. 7, 2024 Order
FUTURHEALTH INC: Faces Wilson Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
GARDEN OF LIFE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Grove Alleges
GOODRX INC: Suppresses Reimbursement Rates, NCPA Suit Says
GOODRX INC: Winships Sues Over Conspiracy of Reimbursement Rates
GOOGLE INC: Riverine Leads Class Action Over Ad Revenue Concerns
HAWAII: Defendants Agree to Settle 2023 Wildfires for $4 Billion
HEYDAY WELLNESS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Sumlin Says
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
IGLOO PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Products
IGLOO PRODUCTS: Lieber Sues Over Biodegradable, Made in USA Labels
IHERB LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Battle Says
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: To Release $200M in Provisions in Class Suit
INSURANCE PIPELINE: Rieske Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
J.R. SIMPLOT: Controls Frozen Potato Product Prices, 1911 Suit Says
KANNACT INC: Fongheiser Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
KENDAL CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jacobsen Says
KHS AMERICA: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Thorne Claims
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Advertisement
LABORATORY CORP: High Court to Review Proposed ADA Class Action
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Morrill Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
LAMB WESTON: Faces Suit Over Frozen Potato Products' Conspiracy
LOS ANGELES, CA: Stay of Berg Class Action Continued
MANAGED CARE: Bid to Dismiss Crowe Suit Tossed
MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC: Court Stays Trial Deadlines
MAXIMUS SERVICES: Mulder Suit Seeks Payment of Severance Pay
MEDTRONIC MINIMED: Faces Maldonado Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
MINNESOTA: Police, Peace Officers Balks at Private Info Disclosure
MOSAIC POTASH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguirre Claims
NEW YORK, NY: Private Security Officers Seek Proper Wages
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Claims
PATAGONIA INC: Faces Orona Suit Over Fake Sale Prices
PETRO-LUD INC: Hunter Must Show Cause for Failure to Comply
PF CALI PAYROLL: Stipulation on Briefing Deadlines Tossed
PHH MORTGAGE: Faces Graham Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance Policy
POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Lockhart Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Menopause Test "Ineffective," Marshall Alleges
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Bid for Class Cert. in Franco Due Feb. 20
PUMP.FUN: Faces Another Class Suit Over Securities Violations
PW TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay OT to Technicians, Meshcheriakov Says
RETAILMENOT INC: Faces Class Action Over Brand Deal Commissions
ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Mitchell Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info
SBKU SERVICES: FLSA Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Remijio Sues for Invasion of Privacy
SEPM MARKETING: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind Cole Says
SIG SAUER: Avalos Sues Over Defective Firearm Sight Product
SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Fisher Seeks Packers' Minimum, OT Wages
SOUTHWEST STAGE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Sutton Says
SOUTHWEST STAGE: Sutton Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info
SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Kayman Alleges Racial Discrimination, Harassment
STAKE CENTER: Filing of Supplemental Briefing Extended to Feb. 21
STEINWAY AND SONS: Thorne Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Court Bifurcates February 2025 Trial
TASKUS INC: Class Cert Oral Argument in Lozada Set for Feb. 18
TELUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
TICKETMASTER LLC: Omaha Federal Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
TICKETMASTER LLC: Settles "Drip Pricing" Class Suit for CAD$6-Mil.
TRINITY OPERATING: Patton Sues Over Unpaid Oil Proceeds Interests
TURQUOISE HILL: Bid to Seal Exhibits in Securities Suit Nixed
UNION PACIFIC: Fitness For Duty Program Violates ADA, Hyatt Says
UNITED SERVICES: Court Amends Case Schedule in Milionis Suit
UNITED STATES: EO Violates Fourteenth Amendment, Aleman Alleges
USC: Class Cert Hearing in Zarnowski Continued to Feb. 27
USC: Favell Can File Exhibit Under Seal
WALMART INC: Mac & Cheese Contains Artificial Flavor, Taylor Says
WATLOW ELECTRIC: Fails to Fully Fund Commission Pools, Suit Says
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Unlawfully Collects Biometric Data, Paredes Says
WYSSTA SERVICES: Discloses Members' Info to Google, Feeler Says
XTO ENERGY: Bid to Certify Class in Kriley Suit Dismissed as Moot
YELLOW THE LABEL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says
Z GALLERIE: Tracks Website Visitors, Deol Suit Alleges
[] AI Related Filings in 2024 Securities Class Action Rise
[^] Class Action Conference Opening Night Cocktail Reception May 7
*********
101 W 55 REST: Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARITO MENDEZ LOPEZ, RAFAEL CAMPOS, and JESUS RAMIREZ SALAZAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. 101 W 55 REST INC. (D/B/A ASTRO RESTAURANT), and
MIRON AVERHIOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00834 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to
comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements, and failure to
provide wage statements.
The Plaintiffs have been employed as food preparers,
dishwasher/delivery worker and cooks, at Astro restaurant located
at 1361 Sixth Avenue, New York, New York.
101 W 55 Rest Inc., doing business as Astro Restaurant, is a
restaurant owner and operator in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
A FEI: Bid for Class Certification in Yang Suit Due Feb. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANG, et al., v. FEI, et
al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05055-RA-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katharine Parker entered an initial case management conference
order:
By March 31, 2025, the Plaintiffs shall file any motion for
alternative service of process on the unserved Defendants and
describe in detail all methods attempted to effect service.
The deadline to amend the pleadings or join parties is June 30,
2025. Any amendments or joinder thereafter shall only be made upon
a showing of good cause consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.
All fact discovery shall be completed by Feb. 27, 2026. All expert
discovery shall be completed by May 29, 2026.
Affirmative expert reports shall be due by Feb. 27, 2026. Rebuttal
reports shall be due by April 30, 2026. Expert depositions shall be
completed by May 29, 2026.
Any Motion for class certification is due by Feb. 27, 2026.
The Defendants shall file their Opposition, if any, by March 27,
2026.
The Plaintiffs shall file their Reply by April 10, 2026.
Motions for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than 30 days
after the close of expert discovery.
By Feb. 19, 2025, the parties shall file a Joint Status Letter
updating the Court on the status of discovery and whether they
would like to schedule a settlement conference.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NQ3DJK at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE CORP: Tracks Customers' Data, Eppley Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EPPLEY, JENNIFER MONILAW, and JACOB WINKELVOSS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE ALLSTATE
CORPORATION, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND
PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ARITY, LLC, ARITY 875, LLC, and ARITY
SERVICES, LLC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00815 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 23, 2025)
contends that Allstate Defendants conspired with their subsidiary
Arity Defendants to track customer and non-customer data far more
broadly and invasively.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants harvested their "trillions of
miles' of data not just when customers agreed to add the DriveWise
program to their auto insurance policy, but through connections
with consumers' mobile devices created when consumers downloaded or
used a myriad of apps on their phone.
The Defendants provided to app developers a software development
kit, or SDK, that could be quickly integrated into their apps. When
a consumer downloaded the third-party app onto their phone, they
also unwittingly downloaded Defendants' software. Once Defendants'
software was downloaded onto a consumer's device, the Defendants
could monitor the consumer's location and movement in real-time.
Through the software integrated into the third-party apps, the
Defendants pulled a variety of valuable data directly from
consumers' mobile phones, including a phone's geolocation data,
accelerometer data, magnetometer data, and gyroscopic data, which
monitors details such as the phone's altitude, longitude, latitude,
bearing, GPS time, speed, and accuracy, the suit says.
Once collected, the Defendants found several ways to monetize the
ill-gotten data, including by selling access to Defendants' driving
behavior database to other insurers and using the data for Allstate
Defendants' own insurance underwriting, the suit asserts.
The Defendants never informed consumers about their extensive data
collection, nor did the Defendants obtain consumers' consent to
engage in such data collection. Finally, the Defendants never
informed consumers about the myriad of ways the Defendants would
analyze, use, and monetize their sensitive data. The Defendants'
conduct violates federal and state privacy laws, and prohibitions
on unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the business of
insurance, alleges the suit.
In 2020, the Plaintiff Eppley downloaded certain third-party apps
that integrated Defendants' SDK.
Allstate provides insurance products, including car insurance,
throughout the United States, including Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
Christopher E. Stiner, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
ARZZ INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Arzz International, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00825 (N.D.
Ill., Jan. 24, 2025) alleges that Arzz failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://www.arezzo-store.com/,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
Accordingly, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods
and services Arzz International provides to their non-disabled
customers through the website. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
high-quality women’s shoes on Arezzo-store.com. Despite her
efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like
that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety
of features and accommodations. Unless the Defendant remedies the
numerous access barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class
members will continue to be unable to independently navigate,
browse, use, and complete a purchase on Arezzo-store.com.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to
refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of Illinois.
Arezzo-store.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Arzz
International. Yet, Arezzo-store.com contains significant access
barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
Brooklyn, New York 11234
2377 56th Dr.
Telephone: (630)-478-0856
E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com
AT&T SERVICES: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
LUIS HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00676 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 27,
2025) alleges violation of the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants'
allocation of forfeited fund assets to reduce its own employer
contributions benefitted Defendants, but harmed the Plan and
participants in the Plan, by reducing Plan assets, and/or by
causing participants to incur expenses that could otherwise have
been covered in whole or in part by forfeited funds.
By choosing to use forfeited Plan assets to benefit itself and not
the Plan or the Plan's participants, Defendants have placed its own
interests above the interests of the Plan and its participants,
says the suit.
AT&T Services, Inc. provides telecommunication services. The
Company offers wireless network, cell phone, digital television,
internet, land line telecommunication services. AT&T Services
serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. SBN 337023
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
at@haffnerlawyers.com
vh@haffnerlawyers.com
AVANGRID INC: Faces Class Action Over Acquisition of Iberdrola
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the M&A Firm) announces that a federal
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
former public common shareholders of Avangrid, Inc. ("Avangrid" or
the "Company") (former ticker symbol: AGR), who were harmed by
alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the
acquisition of Avangrid by Iberdrola, S.A. (as to the acquisition,
the "Buyout"). The case is styled Goldschein v. Avangrid, Inc.,
Case No. 25-cv-00772 (the "Federal Class Action"), and a copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.monteverdelaw.com/news. The
claims in the Federal Class Action are asserted against Avangrid
and certain former directors and officers of the Company on behalf
of stockholders who owned Avangrid shares as of August 19, 2024
(the record date to vote on the Buyout) and who had their stock
exchanged for the merger consideration (the "Class").
Under the terms of the Buyout, each share of Avangrid common stock
was converted into $35.75 in cash, an amount that the Federal Class
Action alleges was financially unfair to Avangrid stockholders. The
Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statements filed by the Company
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the
Buyout provided Avangrid stockholders with materially misleading
and incomplete information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that a
director on Avangrid's "Unaffiliated Committee" responsible for
representing the interests of stockholders during negotiations had
long-standing ties to Iberdrola that were not disclosed in the
Company's Proxy Statements, thereby misleading shareholders about
-- among other things -- the Unaffiliated Committee's independence
and ability to negotiate terms that were financially fair to
stockholders and unaffected by conflicts of interest. The Buyout
closed on December 23, 2024.
Mr. Juan Monteverde is available to personally discuss this case
with you, and if you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must seek
lead appointment in the Federal Class Action no later than March
31, 2025. Any member of the putative Class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
We encourage you to contact us for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/avangrid-inc/
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
At 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 owned
common stock in Avangrid 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]
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Warshaw Suit Over RESPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
LYNNE WARSHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
0:25-cv-60136-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 24, 2025) is an action alleging
that the Defendant committed various errors and misrepresentations
in relation to its obligation to respond to requests for
information and requests to correct errors related to borrowers'
residential mortgage loans.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant has
refused to provide call recordings to which borrowers are entitled,
has given the illusion of timely responses to borrowers' requests
despite not timely sending such responses, and has misled borrowers
as to how long the Defendant has to respond to such requests in
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, online
banking, mortgage, credit and debit cards, investment planning, and
corporate finance services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
N. State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Telephone: (561) 569-7062
Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
BLACKHAWK MINING: Must Pay Scoop Operators Proper Wages, Moore Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MOORE, individually and for others similarly situated v.
BLACKHAWK MINING, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00038 (S.D.W. Va., January
22, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by depriving Plaintiff and the other hourly
employees of overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.
According to the complaint, Blackhawk pays Plaintiff Moore and the
other hourly employees non-discretionary safety, production, and
retention bonuses that Blackhawk fails to include in their regular
rates of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rates of
pay.
Blackhawk's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA by failing to
compensate Moore and the other hourly employees at one and a half
times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration --
for all hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek, says the suit.
Blackhawk Mining, LLC operates eight mining complexes consisting of
both surface and underground coal mining methods. Plaintiff Moore
was employed by the Defendant as a scoop operator from
approximately February 2022 through February 2023. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
Graham B. Platz, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO P.L.L.C.
405 Capitol Street, Suite 807
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-2889
Facsimile: (304) 346-2895
E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com
gplatz@powellmajestro.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CAPITAL ONE: Faces GamersNexus Suit Over Referral-Stealing Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GamersNexus, LLC and Just Josh, Inc., v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, Wikibuy LLC, and Wikibuy Holdings LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-00134 (E.D. Va., Jan. 24, 2025) alleges that Capital One
uses a hidden browser tab to overwrite referral identifiers in
user's cookies, suggesting Capital One acts knowingly and with the
intent to hide their referral-stealing scheme from users and
content creators alike.
Nowhere in the Capital One Shopping checkout process does Capital
One Shopping clearly state that it is replacing the referral
identifier of the content creator who actually referred the shopper
with its own referral code. But if the shopper happens to have
installed the Capital One Shopping browser extension that flow of
commission to the actual referral source is intercepted. When a
shopper arrives at the eCommerce website to make a purchase, the
Capital One Shopping browser extension overwrites the content
creator’s referral code in the shopper's cookie with its own code
and thereby cheats the content creator out of commissions to which
they are entitled. This happens even though the customer used the
online marketer/content creator's specific affiliate web link to
purchase a product or service, the lawsuit says.
Coupon browser extensions are increasingly popular in today's
online shopping marketplaces. Readily available on numerous web
browsers, these extensions purport to automatically identify
coupons and discounts on countless products added by shoppers to
their carts on e-commerce websites. Capital One Shopping claims to
automatically scour the web for coupons, to provide users with
price comparison tools, and to offer a built-in rewards point
system where points can be exchanged for gift cards, added the
suit.
The Plaintiffs are content creators and online marketers whose
commission payments Capital One has wrongfully misappropriated.
The Plaintiffs bring this case on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated to recover the damages they have
sustained and enjoin Capital One's wrongful conduct going forward.
In 2018, Capital One acquired a cashback rewards startup and
browser extension called "Wikibuy."
The tool has since been rebranded and is now known as "Capital One
Shopping," which is controlled by Capital One. Capital One markets
the browser extension to online shoppers by promising to search the
web for coupons that can be applied to items already in the
shopper's online cart.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
Justin M. Sheldon, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23223
Telephone: (804) 351-9040
Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com
Justin@bbtrial.com
- and -
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
Vara Lyons, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206)-802-1272
Facsimile: (206)-299-4184
E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Gandillon Suit Over Referral-Stealing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA GANDILLON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, WIKIBUY
LLC, AND WIKIBUY HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00136 (E.D. Va.,
Jan. 24, 2025) alleges that Capital One uses a hidden browser tab
to overwrite referral identifiers in user's cookies, suggesting
Capital One acts knowingly and with the intent to hide their
referral-stealing scheme from users and content creators alike.
Nowhere in the Capital One Shopping checkout process does Capital
One Shopping clearly state that it is replacing the referral
identifier of the content creator who actually referred the shopper
with its own referral code. But if the shopper happens to have
installed the Capital One Shopping browser extension that flow of
commission to the actual referral source is intercepted. When a
shopper arrives at the eCommerce website to make a purchase, the
Capital One Shopping browser extension overwrites the content
creator’s referral code in the shopper's cookie with its own code
and thereby cheats the content creator out of commissions to which
they are entitled. This happens even though the customer used the
online marketer/content creator's specific affiliate web link to
purchase a product or service, the lawsuit says.
Coupon browser extensions are increasingly popular in today's
online shopping marketplaces. Readily available on numerous web
browsers, these extensions purport to automatically identify
coupons and discounts on countless products added by shoppers to
their carts on e-commerce websites. Capital One Shopping claims to
automatically scour the web for coupons, to provide users with
price comparison tools, and to offer a built-in rewards point
system where points can be exchanged for gift cards, added the
suit.
Ms. Gandillon is a citizen and resident of Missouri. She is an
online content creator who utilizes affiliate marketing links to
earn commissions by promoting products and directing her audience
to merchant websites.
In 2018, Capital One acquired a cashback rewards startup and
browser extension called "Wikibuy."
The tool has since been rebranded and is now known as "Capital One
Shopping," which is controlled by Capital One.
Capital One markets the browser extension to online shoppers by
promising to search the web for coupons that can be applied to
items already in the shopper's online cart.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
7540 Little River Turnpike, Suite A
Annandale, VA 22003
Telephone: (703) 256-1800
Facsimile: (703) 991-6116
E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com
- and -
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
Beena M. Mcdonald, Esq.
Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
& DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
One Haverford Centre
361 Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com
bmm@chimicles.com
amk@chimicles.com
mnp@chimicles.com
- and -
James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-7700
E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com
CARRUTH COMPLIANCE: Ringer Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
AUTUMN RINGER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARRUTH COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00119-HL (D. Ore., January 23, 2025) is
a class action arising out of the recent targeted attack and data
breach on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access
to highly sensitive data.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable
information -- which were entrusted to Defendant, their officials,
and agents -- were compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the
data breach. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and
Class Members have been exposed to a present, heightened and
imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class
Members must now closely monitor their financial accounts to guard
against identity theft for the rest of their lives, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself and
the Class for: negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Through these claims,
the Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, damages and injunctive relief,
including improvements to Defendant's data security systems and
integrated services, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services.
Carruth Compliance Consulting, Inc. is a third-party administrator
that handles retirement savings plans for school districts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
kboyd@tousley.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 990-2218
E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com
CHRISTIE BUSINESS: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Berk and Mason N. Floyd, writing for Clark Hill, reports that
on Jan. 24, the Illinois Supreme Court, in Petta v. Christie
Business Holdings Company, PC, affirmed the dismissal of a putative
class action following an alleged data breach because the named
plaintiff failed to allege any actual injury resulting from the
alleged breach.
Plaintiff's Allegations
The plaintiff was a patient of Christie Clinic. In connection with
the services Christie Clinic provided, plaintiff provided it with
personal information including her "name, address, date of birth,
Social Security number, medical history, and medical insurance
information." In March 2022, the plaintiff received a letter from
Christie Clinic notifying her that a threat actor had obtained
unauthorized access to one of Christie Clinic's business email
accounts in an effort to intercept a business transaction. The
letter further explained that, while Christie Clinic could not
determine whether or which specific emails were viewed or accessed,
the account "may" have contained the plaintiff's Social Security
number and medical insurance information. Christie Clinic also
stated that it had no evidence that any of the plaintiff's personal
information was misused or that her identity had been stolen.
With respect to the impact of the incident on her, the plaintiff
alleged that she noticed suspicious behavior relating to her
address and phone number. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that
her "phone number, city, and state" were used on a loan application
at a bank in Ohio under someone else's name.
As a result, the plaintiff brought a putative class action claiming
that Christie Clinic committed negligence and negligence per se by
failing to provide "reasonable security" and protect her personal
information, and violated Illinois' Personal Information Protection
Act.
The Ruling
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's dismissal
of the lawsuit because the plaintiff lacked standing to bring her
claims. The court noted the Illinois requirements for standing:
In Illinois, standing requires only some injury in fact to a
legally cognizable interest. More precisely, the claimed injury,
whether actual or threatened, must be: (1) distinct and palpable;
(2) fairly traceable to the defendant's actions; and (3)
substantially likely to be prevented or redressed by the grant of
the requested relief.
The Court further noted that allegations of a "purely speculative"
future injury are insufficient to establish standing.
Turning to the plaintiff's complaint, the court first analyzed the
letter from Christie Clinic. Viewing that letter in a light most
favorable to the plaintiff, the court found that it only suggested
that the plaintiff and the class members faced an "increased risk"
that their personal data was accessed by a third party. The court
ruled that such increased risk of harm was insufficient to
establish standing to seek monetary damages.
The court next reviewed the plaintiff's allegation that some of her
information was used in a loan application made under another
person's name. The court found that this allegation also failed to
establish standing. Despite the plaintiff's complaint alleging that
Christie Clinic failed to prevent unauthorized disclosure of the
plaintiff's private information, the Court pointed out that the
loan application only utilized the plaintiff's publicly available
information: phone number, city, and state. Therefore, the loan
application did not show theft of the plaintiff's identity or that
a third party had acquired her private information. Moreover, the
court noted that the information listed in the loan application –
the plaintiff's phone number, city, and state – was information
that could be easily found in a public phone directory. As a
result, the misuse of that information could not be traced to
Christie Clinic's alleged failure to protect the plaintiff's
private information.
Why Is This Important?
Lack of standing is one of the primary defenses that companies and
organizations may raise to attack putative class actions that
follow virtually all alleged data breach incidents today. The
question that arises is whether the plaintiff has alleged
sufficient actual harm that is "fairly traceable" to the alleged
incident. Here, the Illinois Supreme Court confirmed that Illinois,
like numerous other jurisdictions, requires more than a mere
increased risk of harm to establish standing. Moreover, the
Illinois Supreme Court's ruling illustrates to lower courts the
need to review a named plaintiff's specific allegations and analyze
whether the alleged harm a plaintiff relies on indicates actual
identity theft or actual misuse of the private information that may
have been impacted in the alleged data breach incident.
Companies facing putative class actions following cyber incidents
should consult their legal advisors regarding their options, and
the strength (or lack thereof) of the claims. Clark Hill's team of
attorneys have experience in these matters and stand ready to
assist. [GN]
CONNECTONCALL.COM LLC: Neary Files Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN NEARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONNECTONCALL.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:25-cv-00397 (E.D.N.Y., January 23, 2025) seeks to hold the
Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on
Plaintiff and hundreds of thousands of similarly situated persons
due to the Defendant's impermissibly inadequate and unlawful data
security, which caused their personal information to be exfiltrated
by cybercriminals between February 16, 2024 and May 12, 2024.
Prior to and through the date of the data breach, the Defendant
obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information and
then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent and/or reckless
manner, says the suit. As evidenced by the data breach, the
Defendant inadequately and unlawfully maintained its network,
platform, software -- rendering these easy prey for
cybercriminals.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered -- and will continue
to suffer -- from the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of
their personal information, emotional distress, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the data
breach. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks remedies including, but not
limited to, compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief.
ConnectOnCall.com, LLC is a telehealth platform and after-hours
on-call answering service with automated patient call tracking for
healthcare providers. It is headquartered in Hauppauge, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
- and -
Brian Murray, Esq.
GLANCY, PRONGAY & MURRAY
230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
ELEVANCE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Coordinators' OT Wages, Johnson Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOLANA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES, INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-00184-E (N.D. Tex., Jan. 23, 2025) sues the Defendant for
its illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff and
the Class Members overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40
per workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated routinely worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek but were not allowed to record more
than 40 hours per week on their electronic time sheets, the suit
alleges.
Ms. Johnson complained on a number of occasions about Defendant's
policy of capping hours worked at 40 hours per week. Defendant's
management initially responded that Ms. Johnson and others were
simply not managing their time correctly. Shortly after one of Ms.
Johnson's multiple complaints, Ms. Johnson's supervisor issued Ms.
Johnson a write-up based on an entirely fictional violation of work
rules. Afterward, Ms. Johnson was placed on administrative leave
and then subsequently terminated, the suit says.
The putative class is made up of all persons who are or have been
employed by the Defendant in Texas as LTSS field service
coordinators or other similar positions who were paid hourly and
treated as non-exempt from overtime laws and whose primary job was
to assist in the pediatric assessment process during the applicable
statutory period.
Ms. Johnson was employed the Defendant as a field service
coordinator beginning in March 2022.
Elevance Health is an American for-profit health insurance
provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Telephone: (512) 799-2048
E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com
EQUAL EXCHANGE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 17
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. Equal
Exchange, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00055 (S.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 11,
2023), the Hon. Judge Andrew G. Schopler entered an order granting
joint motion for an extension:
-- The deadline to file a class-certification March 17, 2025
motion is:
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Equal Exchange operates as a worker-owned cooperative system.[CC]
ESSA PHARMA: Faces Groll Suit Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
TODD VAN GROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESSA PHARMA INC.; DAVID R. PARKINSON; and
DAVID S. WOOD, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00124-BBC (E.D. Wis.,
Jan. 24, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired ESSA securities between
December 12, 2023 and October 31, 2024, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) masofaniten in
combination with enzalutamide had no clear efficacy benefit over
enzalutamide alone; (ii) accordingly, masofaniten in combination
with enzalutamide was less effective in treating prostate cancer
than Defendants had led investors to believe; (iii) the M-E
Combination Study was unlikely to meet its prespecified Phase 2
primary endpoint; (iv) accordingly, Defendants had overstated
masofaniten's clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects; and
(v) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
ESSA's stock price fell $3.80 per share, or 73.08 percent, to close
at $1.40 per share on November 1, 2024. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the suit.
ESSA Pharma Inc., is a pharmaceutical company focused on the
development of small molecule drugs for the treatment of prostate
cancer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
EVERGY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Henry County Contamination Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Schmidt, writing for KCTV5, reports that a class action
lawsuit claims Evergy and three other companies used part of Henry
County, Mo., as a "dumping ground" for fly ash.
Attorneys filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of people living
within 10 miles of the Montrose Generating Station. The station is
located about 15 miles southwest of Clinton, Mo.
The class action lawsuit also asks for medical monitoring for
anyone who lived, worked, or attended school within a 10-mile
radius of the plant for at least a year over the past four
decades.
The newly filed lawsuit demands a jury trial and claims the four
companies were negligent and caused property damage that could
impact the health of "hundreds of people."
Evergy said it is aware of the lawsuit, but said it doesn't comment
on specific litigation.
The company did release the following statement:
At the Jan. 27 meeting in Henry County, we volunteered to
participate in additional third-party testing. We met again with
the Henry County Commission to move the testing process forward. We
are also reaching out to the local Henry County water district
companies and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to
obtain the results of the tests routinely taken of the local water
supply.
The Montrose facility is in full compliance with all groundwater
testing required by state and federal regulations. Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) inspected our site in March
2023 and confirmed the site to be in compliance; MDNR also visited
the site in August 2024 and again last week, each time expressing
no concerns with observed operations or dust management.
Many of the materials discussed at the Henry County Commission
meeting are frequently found and commonly used in and around
Missouri, including in various agricultural products, cement and
paint thinner, as well as in the soil and rocks.
-- Evergy Statement on Jan. 30, 2025
According to the lawsuit, KCPL owned the coal-fired power plant
before Evergy bought the utility. The power plant operated for
nearly 60 years before it closed in 2018, according to the
lawsuit.
It claims coal combustion residuals were produced at the site for
decades. The residuals are also known commonly as fly ash. The
practice " . . . essentially making the Montrose location its
dumping ground," the lawsuit claims.
The lawsuit claims the property now is used as a place for the
companies to store fly ash and distribute it around the southeast
part of the state.
The lawsuit claims the companies are responsible for spreading fly
ash across the community, including at schools and private
properties.
The document claims by spreading the fly ash around, the four
companies have contaminated the air, land, and water with dangerous
toxins.
Defendants have not only caused economic damage to property owners
but are also increasing the risk of disease to all members of the
community exposed to Defendants' CCR, including latent diseases
that require medical monitoring for early detection.
-- Excerpt from lawsuit filed Jan. 30, 2025
The defendants claim hundreds of thousands of pounds of fly ash and
other toxins were generated at the coal-fired plant near Montrose,
Mo.
The company that owned the plant realized it could make money by
selling the fly ash starting in the 1980's, according to the
lawsuit.
It also claims Evergy moved the fly ash from the plant into trucks,
without using a closed system to mitigate the amount of fly ash
that escaped into the air and property.
Another company named in the lawsuit is accused of doing three
things with the fly ash:
-- Moving it offsite
-- Putting it into bags and then moved offsite
-- Moving it into an onsite landfill
Evergy is also accused of storing the fly ash in ponds on the power
plant's property. The lawsuit accused Evergy of allowing the fly
ash to run off piles and into the ponds, further contaminating
property and air in the area.
CLOSURE PLAN
Evergy created and implemented a closure plan for the plant in Oct.
2016.
The lawsuit claims the fly ash at the site was to be covered with
an "engineered cap" to prevent it from contaminating nearby
properties.
Any other disturbance, such as removal of CCR for beneficial use,
is allowed if the owner or operator of the CCR unit demonstrates
that disturbance of the final cover, or other components of the
containment system, will not increase the potential threat to human
health or the environment
-- Excerpt from lawsuit filed on Jan. 30, 2025
The lawsuit claims that is not what is happening at the site.
Instead, it claims Evergy and another company excavated the fly ash
and other toxins from the ponds at the former power plant in Jan.
2020. It claims the fly ash was dumped above ground on the
property.
The companies are accused of spreading more fly ash into the air as
workers moved it on the property.
The lawsuit claims because of their negligence the groundwater,
surface water, soil, air and environment in the area is all
contaminated.
The lawsuit demands a jury trial and seeks medical monitoring and a
monetary judgement to cover damages.
SECOND LAWSUIT
A Henry County couple has already sued the four companies over the
former plant.
Bill Steward and his wife, Sue, sued Evergy and three other
companies earlier this month.
The suit claims Evergy now owns a coal-fired power plant in
Montrose, Mo. Kansas City Power and Light previously owned the
property. The lawsuit accuses the four companies of failing to take
precautions while storing, disposing, and transporting hundreds of
thousands of pounds of "Fly Ash."
In a statement Evergy said its Montrose facility has a dust control
plan in place. The plan includes visual observations to confirm it
is in full compliance. The Fly Ash observations are conducted twice
a day.
Evergy also released a statement in response to the lawsuit filed
by the Stewards.
The safety of the Henry County community, and all communities where
Evergy operates, is our top priority.
The Montrose facility is in full compliance with all groundwater
testing required by state and federal regulations. Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) inspected our site in March
2023 and confirmed the site to be in compliance; MDNR also visited
the site in August 2024 and again on Friday January 24th, each time
expressing no concerns with observed operations or dust
management.
Many of the chemicals discussed at the Henry County Commission
meeting are frequently found in materials commonly used in and
around Missouri, including in various agricultural products, cement
and paint thinner, as well as in the soil and rocks.
We are analyzing the test results discussed at the meeting and have
been in contact with the Commission and school district to better
understand their concerns.[GN]
FABLETICS INC: Othman Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
SAL OTHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FABLETICS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00370 (E.D.N.Y., January 22, 2025) is a putative class
action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in telemarketing
text messages at unlawful times to promote its goods and services.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into
the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to
Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
Fabletics, Inc. offers a variety of activewear, including leggings,
sports bras, tank tops, gym shorts, and hoodies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com
FJALLRAVEN USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fjallraven USA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00714 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 24, 2025) alleges that Fjallraven failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://www.fjallraven.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.
Fjallraven.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Fjallraven
USA. Yet, Fjallraven.com contains significant access barriers that
make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to
make an online purchase of a parka on Fjallraven.com. Despite his
efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like
that of a sighted individual due to the Website’s lack of a
variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies
the numerous access barriers on its website, Plaintiff and Class
members will continue to be unable to independently navigate,
browse, use, and complete a purchase on Fjallraven.com., the
lawsuit says.
Because Defendant's website, Fjallraven.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Fjallraven USA's policies, practices, and procedures to that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
The Defendant controls and operates Fjallraven.com in New York
State and throughout the United States.
Fjallraven.com is a commercial website that offers products and
services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view
high-quality outdoor apparel and equipment, make purchases, and
perform a variety of other functions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, New York 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Bid for Class Cert. in Nelson Suit Due Feb. 27
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trevor Nelson, et al. v.
Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-02231 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug.
19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order modifying
the scheduling order as follows:
-- Motion for class certification due by: Feb. 27, 2026
-- Dispositive motions due by: June 12, 2026
-- The Final Pretrial Conference currently Nov. 23, 2026
set for Aug. 10, 2026, is reset for:
-- Jury Trial currently set for: Oct. 13, 2026
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[CN]
FORD MOTOR: Court Amends Nov. 7, 2024 Order
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL
SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order granting in part
and denying in part Ford's motion for reconsideration of the
Court's Nov. 7, 2024 order.
The Court amends its Nov. 7, 2024 Order to recognize that
Plaintiffs' Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim was
previously dismissed, and clarify that only a Breach of Express
Warranty claim has been certified under Texas law.
Ford's assertion merely attempts to litigate the merits of
Plaintiffs' claims and thus is improperly raised on a motion for
reconsideration. Indeed, Ford's argument as to merchantability are
better suited for trial or a motion for summary judgment. The Court
denies the motion for reconsideration as to these claims.
The Court did not find persuasive the differing manifestation rates
across two of the four model year platforms. The Court considered,
and rejected, Ford's argument concerning differing rates of
manifestation, and the Court does not find grounds for
reconsideration. Because Ford fails to demonstrate entitlement to
reconsideration, the court denies its motion as to this claim.
Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uEuOfI at no extra
charge.[CC]
FUTURHEALTH INC: Faces Wilson Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FUTURHEALTH, INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-00157-BJC-DDL (S.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2025) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The suit says that the Defendant routinely violates 47 C.F.R.
section 64.1200(c) and, in turn, 47 U.S.C. section 227(c)(5), by
delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement
or marketing text message to residential or cellular telephone
numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry without
prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA. The
Defendant delivered, or caused to be delivered, text messages to
telephone number (541) XXX-9999 in 2024, including in October,
November and December of 2024, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express consent or
permission to deliver, or cause to be delivered, advertisement or
marketing text messages to telephone number (541) XXX-9999. The
Plaintiff also did not request information or promotional materials
from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of the subject text
messages in that he suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion
into his life, and a private nuisance, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff is, and has been for at least five years, the
subscriber to and customary user of his cellular telephone
number-(541) XXX-9999. The Plaintiff had registered his number on
the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days prior to
receiving the calls at issue.
FuturHealth offers online personalized weight management featuring
weight loss medication and professional guidance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
GARDEN OF LIFE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Grove Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY GROVE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GARDEN OF LIFE, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80113 (S.D. Fla.,
Jan. 24, 2025) alleges that Garden of Life failed to properly
secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
Garden of Life customers' personally identifiable information,
including names, addresses, email addresses, credit and debit card
numbers, expiration dates, and card value verification numbers,
from criminal hackers.
On Jan. 17, 2025, Garden of Life notified its customers about a
widespread data breach that occurred in or around July 2024.1
Garden of Life did not discover this breach until December 18,
2024. Based on the Notice sent to Plaintiff and "Class Members",
suspicious activity was detected on its website software. In
response, the Defendant launched an investigation. The Defendant's
investigation revealed that unknown and unauthorized individual(s)
gained accessed to Defendant's website software that contained the
Private Information of approximately 43,000 customers, and that
such access took place on or around July 2024.
Yet, Garden of Life waited 6 months to notify the public that they
were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and
Class Members had no idea for months that their Private Information
had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and
all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was
accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class,
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
Garden of Life based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, is a provider
of whole-food based nutrition and vitamin supplements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Wallace, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 244-5660
E-mail: jwallace@sirillp.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
GOODRX INC: Suppresses Reimbursement Rates, NCPA Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL COMMUNITY PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC.; GOODRX
HOLDINGS, INC., CVS CAREMARK CORP.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.;
MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.; and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00585 (C.D. Cal., January 22,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for orchestrating a
horizonal conspiracy among certain pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)
to fix and suppress the rates of reimbursement paid to independent
pharmacies for generic drug in violation of the Sherman Act.
Since January 1, 2024, and possibly sooner, at least four PBMs --
CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, and Navitus Health
Solutions -- have agreed to participate in GoodRx's Integrated
Savings Program. As part of the ISP, the PBM Defendants agree to
outsource their pharmacy reimbursement rate decisions on generic
drugs to a mutual third party, GoodRx, which sets the rates of
reimbursement for them with full knowledge of competitively
sensitive information across ostensibly rivalrous PBMs.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have combined to form a
cartel to artificially suppress reimbursement rates paid to
pharmacies across the U.S. for generic drugs, and they have
exchanged non-public and competitively sensitive information with
one another in order to accomplish that purpose.
National Community Pharmacists Association is a nonprofit
organization based in Alexandria, Virginia.
GoodRx, Inc. provides drug price comparison and pharmacy
information services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Halley Josephs, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Bill Carmody, Esq.
Shawn Rabin, Esq.
Gloria Park, Esq.
Tom Boardman, Esq.
Henry Walter, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
One Manhattan West, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
srabin@susmangodfrey.com
gpark@susmangodfrey.com
tboardman@susmangodfrey.com
hwalter@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Natasha Fernández-Silber, Esq.
Abby Lemert, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 N La Salle Dr., 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: nfernandezsilber@edelson.com
alemert@edelson.com
GOODRX INC: Winships Sues Over Conspiracy of Reimbursement Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
WINSHIPS PRESCRIPTION CENTER, INC., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC.; and
GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00037 (D.R.I.,
Jan. 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants entered
into and engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy in the
unreasonable restraint of trade. The contract, combination, or
conspiracy consisted of an agreement among the Defendants and their
co-conspirators to fix, maintain, stabilize or suppress the
pharmacy reimbursement rates for generic prescription drugs
dispensed by the Plaintiff and Class members at artificially low
and discriminatory levels.
As part of their unlawful contract, combination or conspiracy or
fix, maintain, stabilize or suppress the pharmacy reimbursement
rates for generic prescription drugs dispensed by the Plaintiff and
Class members at artificially low and discriminatory levels, the
Pharmacy Benefit Managers agreed to exchange commercially sensitive
and proprietary pricing information with the Defendant GoodRx and
to refrain from competitive bidding.
GoodRx, Inc. provides drug price comparison and pharmacy
information services. The Company offers pricing information,
payment guidance, discount programs, alerts, and other related
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent L. Greene IV, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
40 Westminster St., 5th Floor
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 457-7700
Email: vgreene@motleyrice.com
- and -
Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
Nathaniel Blakney, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
800 Third Avenue, Ste, 2401
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 577-0040
Email: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
nblakney@motleyrice.com
- and -
Donald A. Migliori, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside. Blvd
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
Email: dmigliori@motleyrice.com
GOOGLE INC: Riverine Leads Class Action Over Ad Revenue Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mi3 reports that Rural NSW publisher Riverine Grazier is
spearheading a class action lawsuit against Google, alleging that
the tech giant's dominance in the digital display advertising
sector has resulted in diminished revenues for local publishers.
The legal proceedings are being managed by Maurice Blackburn
Lawyers and Phi Finney McDonald, with a Federal Court hearing
before Justice O'Bryan scheduled to flag the class action. The
formal filing of the lawsuit is expected to occur before February
14.
The lawsuit, which was initially signaled by Maurice Blackburn in
November, accuses Google's ad technology platforms of misusing
their dominant market position, which has purportedly impacted the
revenue streams of local publishers. The case is part of a broader
trend, following similar legal actions against Google in the United
States, United Kingdom, and Canada, as well as regulatory
scrutiny.
General Manager of Riverine Grazier, Krista Schade, said: "The
Grazier is just one of many thousands of publishers in Australia
and worldwide simply trying to earn fair income from online
advertising to support the important job of news publishing, who
find themselves stifled by Google's conduct. That's why we have
stepped forward to lead this action," Schade said. "Our online
stories are read across the globe, and our website is accessed by
readers every single day, yet the remuneration to us from using
Google's services is a pittance. We think it is unfairly low.
"Google's practices have affected publishers of all sizes, all over
the world. If large news organisations feel powerless, you can only
imagine how The Grazier feels. We cannot negotiate with a global
power such as Google."
Principal Lawyer at Maurice Blackburn, Miranda Nagy, said:
"Google's conduct has been under scrutiny around the world. The
potential class action follows similar proceedings in the USA and
class actions in the UK Competition Tribunal and Canada, as well as
action by regulators," Nagy said.
"In Australia, an ACCC Inquiry into digital advertising in 2021
identified significant competition concerns and considered that
Google's conflicts of interest had led to poor outcomes for
publishers. The ACCC said that Google engaged in a range of conduct
that froze out competitors and entrenched its dominant position,
likely interfering with the competitive process. Our case is that
this conduct breached competition laws and was unconscionable."
[GN]
HAWAII: Defendants Agree to Settle 2023 Wildfires for $4 Billion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kit Yona, writing for FindLaw, reports that considering the
magnitude of the destruction, the number of plaintiffs involved,
and the amount of money earmarked for relief, the speed of the
settlement for the 2023 wildfires that incinerated Lahaina is
remarkable. After negotiating for about a year, the defendants
agreed to pay over $4 billion in damages to the victims and their
families.
Alas, a quick resolution is no longer guaranteed. Almost half a
year later, the matter finds itself before a judge to determine who
gets how much. To further complicate the issue, another case
pending in Hawaii's Supreme Court may sink the entire deal.
Rising From the Ashes
The fires that devastated the island of Maui on August 8, 2023,
were considered the worst natural disaster in Hawaii's history and
one of the worst American wildfires ever. At least 102 people died
and over two thousand homes and businesses went up in flames.
Over 600 lawsuits filed in the aftermath placed responsibility on
the state of Hawaii, the power utility Hawaiian Electric, and five
other defendants that included large landowners. They were bundled
into two groups of plaintiffs.
One was a class-action suit that included tourists looking for
reimbursement for canceled vacations. The other was made up of
individual suits by homeowners, businesses, and family members who
lost loved ones in the blaze.
The alacrity with which a settlement amount was reached surprised
some. Hawaii Gov. Josh Green lauded the deal and hoped it would
help the victims heal and recover.
Problems arose when it came time to allocate the funds, such as how
to determine priority. Does getting a business that provides income
for numerous employees up and running carry more weight than
rebuilding a family's home? Do those who lost loved ones deserve
quicker relief? With attorneys unable to reach a consensus, they
turned to the courts for a ruling.
Circuit Court Judge Peter Cahill will hear testimony both live and
prerecorded from victims of the wildfires as he tries to find an
equitable solution for dispersing the settlement. However, another
ruling may render the entire procedure moot.
Subrogation Nation
A key condition of the $4 billion settlement is that insurers who
have made payments can't attempt to recoup by legal actions against
the victims. Known as subrogation, this is a fairly common practice
used by insurance companies. It can also seek remedy from the
person or entity responsible for their client's loss.
Insurers have paid out over $2 billion in claims to policyholders
who suffered losses in the fire. The Hawaii Supreme Court will hear
arguments on Feb. 6, 2025, to determine if the insurers have the
right to sue for repayment directly from those receiving a
settlement. If not, their portion will come from the $4 billion
settlement.
As Hawaii permits equitable subrogation, the Supreme Court must
determine if it applies here. If the Court allows insurers to sue
their policyholders, the entire settlement deal could collapse. For
those still awaiting funds to help rebuild their lives, further
delays could carry the impact of another catastrophe.
Restoring Paradise
For those who lost family to the Maui fires, no amount of money can
bring their loved ones back. Still, the $4 billion settlement
allows victims to rebuild their homes and businesses. With
questions swirling about the financial stability of Hawaii
Electric, it's a safe bet that victims would like the settlement
issue solved sooner rather than later. [GN]
HEYDAY WELLNESS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Sumlin Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEYDAY WELLNESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00715 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.heydayskincare.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Heyday Wellness LLC provides personal care products online. The
Company offers skin care products including cleansers,
moisturizers, sunscreens, toners, serums, masks, facial oils,
exfoliants, and other body care items. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Tel: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (NYSE: HII)
resulting from allegations that Huntington Ingalls may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
So What: If you purchased Huntington Ingalls securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=34279 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On October 31, 2024, Huntington Ingalls
released its third quarter 2024 financial results. In this
announcement, Huntington Ingalls' CEO stated in part that "our
assumptions of performance improvement and risk reduction have not
been achieved, due to late critical material deliveries from the
supply chain and reduced experiences levels within our teams, both
in production touch labor and supervision. This leads to labor
inefficiency, and in some cases to rework, which can affect program
schedules."
On this news, Huntington Ingalls' stock price fell 26.1% on October
31, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
IGLOO PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of CLassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges Igloo has falsely advertised that certain
cooler products are biodegradable, entirely composed of recycled
materials or made in the United States.
The 30-page lawsuit first contests Igloo Products Corp.'s
representations that its ReCool 16-quart cooler is "Biodegradable"
and "Made From Biodegradable Materials," which the case argues
leads consumers to believe the product will fully break down within
a reasonable time after typical disposal. However, the complaint
contends, the Igloo ReCool cooler is usually thrown in the trash
and taken to landfills, where environmental conditions prevent
significant biodegradation.
"Buried trash in landfills is typically deprived of oxygen,
moisture, and beneficial microbes, and is more likely to be
‘mummified' than decomposed within a meaningful timeframe," the
suit says, calling Igloo's biodegradable representations "false and
misleading."
The filing also takes issue with the defendant's front-label claims
indicating that certain EcoCool coolers and REPREVE cooler bags are
"Made With Post Consumer Recycled Plastic Material" and "Made From
Recycled Plastic Bottles." The lawsuit asserts that these
representations -- which are often accompanied by the
three-chasing-arrows symbol -- misleadingly suggest that the
products are made with 100 percent recycled materials.
Although some parts of these products, like the outer plastic
shell, are made from recycled materials, many significant
components -- including the foam insulation, interior linings and
other structural elements -- are not composed of recycled
materials, the complaint alleges.
The suit claims the following Igloo products are labeled with
misleading recycled content representations:
-- EcoCool Little Playmate seven-quart cooler;
-- EcoCool Latitude 52-quart cooler;
-- EcoCool Latitude 30-quart cooler;
-- EcoCool Latitude 90-quart roller cooler;
-- EcoCool Latitude 60-quart roller cooler;
-- Packable Puffer 20-can cooler bag;
-- FUNdamentals Hip Pack cooler bag;
-- FUNdamentals Vertical Sling cooler bag; and
-- FUNdamentals Messenger cooler bag.
"Nothing in [Igloo's] labeling or advertising discloses that these
products are, at best, partially made from recycled materials," the
case contends.
Per the suit, Igloo's marketing of the ReCool, EcoCool and REPREVE
cooler products allegedly violates the Federal Trade Commission's
Green Guides, which provide guidance on how companies can avoid
making deceptive or unsubstantiated environmental claims.
Finally, Igloo illegally sells products labeled as "Made in the
USA" even though the items contain raw materials that are made and
sourced from outside the United States, the case contends.
The filing argues that Igloo uses these misrepresentations as a way
to induce customers into paying a premium price for its products.
"Had [consumers] known the truth about the ReCool Products [sic]
inability to biodegrade under customary landfill conditions, or
that only part of the EcoCool/REPREVE Products is made from
recycled materials, or that the Made in USA Products were not
entirely made of raw materials made and sourced in the United
States, they would not have purchased them or would have paid
significantly less for them," the complaint says.
The Igloo cooler lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United
States who purchased any of the ReCool, EcoCool or REPREVE
products, or items labeled as "Made in USA," during the applicable
statute of limitations period. [GN]
IGLOO PRODUCTS: Lieber Sues Over Biodegradable, Made in USA Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOE LIEBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00488-LKE (E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business
Law, breach of express warranty statute, breach of implied warranty
statute, and in the alternative, unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Igloo brand
products, including ReCool Reusable Coolers, EcoCool Hardshell
Coolers, and REPREVE Cooler Bags. According to the complaint, the
Defendant markets and sells the Igloo products with front-label
representations such as "Made From Biodegradable Materials,"
"Biodegradable," "Made With Post Consumer Recycled Plastic
Material," "Made From Recycled Plastic Bottles," or "Made in USA."
However, unbeknownst to consumers, the products are either
customarily thrown in the trash and end up in landfills, only
certain components of the coolers and bags contain recycled
material, or some raw materials are made and sourced from outside
the U.S. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered financial
damages.
Igloo Products Corp. is a manufacturer of ice chests, drink
containers, and supporting accessories, headquartered in Katy,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 593-9095
Facsimile: (213) 785-2899
Email: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
- and -
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Telephone: (310) 751-5948
Email: jnassir@treehouselaw.com
bheikali@treehouselaw.com
rglezakos@treehouselaw.com
IHERB LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Battle Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IHERB, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00900 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 27, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.iherb.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
iHerb, Inc. retails nutritional and healthcare products. The
Company provides supplements, natural health products, vitamins,
herbs, bathing and beauty products, grocery, kids accessories, and
sports goods. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8706
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: To Release $200M in Provisions in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Brief reports that insurer IAG expects to release $200
million of a $380 million provision linked to a Federal Court class
action, following a court decision that the matter will no longer
continue as a class action from March 26, 2024.
The context: Slater & Gordon initiated class action proceedings
against IAG subsidiaries Insurance Australia Limited (IAL) and
Insurance Manufacturers of Australia (IMA) in May 2024.
A Slater & Gordon investigation had suggested that IAL and IMA had
used pricing strategies between May 27, 2018 and May 27, 2024 for
home and contents insurance that raised the base of premiums of
customers they considered less likely to switch providers.
The Federal Court ordered in December that the matter no longer
continue as a class action from 26 March and that group members
would be able to opt out of the matter prior to that date to avoid
being bound by earlier court rulings.
IAG is due to announce its financial results for the six months to
December 31 on February 13. [GN]
INSURANCE PIPELINE: Rieske Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Natisha Rieske, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Insurance Pipeline Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00051 (M.D. Fla., January 23, 2025)
arises from the Defendant's engagement in a widespread pattern and
practice of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, and those similarly
situated, worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks
without receiving the proper overtime pay for all their overtime
hours because Defendants failed to properly calculate the overtime
pay rate to include non-discretionary bonuses.
The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as an insurance sales agent
and was hired in June 2024 and works as a remote employee from
Eustis, Florida.
Insurance Pipeline Inc. is a health insurance agency with its
principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
7951 SW 6th Street Suite 316
Plantation, FL 33324-4241
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
J.R. SIMPLOT: Controls Frozen Potato Product Prices, 1911 Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1911 SMOKE HOUSE GROUP D/B/A 1911 SMOKE HOUSE BAR-B-QUE, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.R.
SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD; CAVENDISH FARMS, INC.; MCCAIN
FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.;
LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.;
and LAMB WESTON SALES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00893
(N.D. Ill., January 27, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
of 1890, state antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws, and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to raise,
fix, stabilize or maintain prices on frozen potato products above
competitive levels. The Defendants synchronized their price
increases multiple times per year since at least early-2021. As a
result of the Defendants' combination and conspiracy, frozen potato
product prices in the United States have been artificially inflated
through the Class Period, from January 1, 2021, to the present,
causing the Plaintiff and other commercial, industrial, and
institutional indirect purchasers to suffer damages.
1911 Smoke House Group, doing business as 1911 Smoke House
Bar-B-Que, is a restaurant owner and operator located in New
Jersey.
J.R. Simplot Co. is a producer of frozen potato products, with its
headquarters in Boise, Idaho.
Cavendish Farms Ltd. is a producer of frozen potato products, with
its headquarters in Dieppe, New Brunswick, Canada.
Cavendish Farms, Inc. is a subsidiary of Cavendish Farms Ltd., with
its principal place of business in North Dakota.
McCain Foods Limited is a producer of frozen potato products, with
its corporate headquarters in Toronto, Canada.
McCain Foods USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of McCain Foods Limited
based in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois.
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. is a producer, distributor, and marketer
of frozen potato products, headquartered in Eagle, Idaho.
Lamb Weston, Inc. is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.
Lamb Weston BSW, LLC is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.
Lamb Weston/Midwest, Inc. is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings,
Inc.
Lamb Weston Sales, Inc. is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings,
Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Walner, Esq.
WALNER LAW
33 N. LaSalle St.
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 800-0000
Email: jon@walnerlaw.com
- and -
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Mary Ann Geppert, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF
2001 Market Street, Ste. 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Email: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
mgeppert@srkattorneys.com
- and -
David P. McLafferty, Esq.
MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, PC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 940-4000
Email: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com
KANNACT INC: Fongheiser Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fongheiser v. Kannact,
Inc. (re Kannact, Inc. Data Security Incident), Case No.
6:23-cv-01288 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge entered an order certifying
Class for settlement purpose:
"All persons in the United States whose information may have
been impacted in the Data Incident, including persons to whom
Kannact mailed a notification that their information may have
been impacted in the Data Incident."
Kannact is a solutions provider who seek to improve lives of
patients through innovative healthcare collaboration solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DC42yq at no extra
charge.[CC]
KENDAL CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jacobsen Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Niamh Jacobsen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Kendal Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00104-UNA (D.
Del., Jan. 24, 2025) is a class action arising out of the data
breach involving Defendant.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendant
for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' names, checking accounts/routing numbers, and Social
Security numbers.
The Plaintiff contends that current and former TKC employees are
required to entrust the Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII,
without which Defendant could not perform its regular business
activities, in order to obtain employment or certain employment
benefits at Defendant. The Defendant retains this information for
at least many years and even after the employee-employer
relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and
deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members,
Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals
to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access
and intrusion, the suit says.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of
the Defendant.
The Defendant is an organization that provides programs and
services that advocate for older adults.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
P. Bradford deLeeuw (DE Bar #3569)
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 274-2180
E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
KHS AMERICA: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Thorne Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KHS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00787 (S.D.N.Y., January 27, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law, and 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,
www.hohnershop.com/hohner-shop-us, 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 (alt-text) or a text
equivalent, 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.
KHS America, 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
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Advertisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Alyssa
Flexer filed a class action lawsuit against Kraft Heinz Food
Company.
Why: Flexer claims Kraft Heinz falsely advertises its Capri-Sun
juice pouches as containing all natural ingredients.
Where: The Capri-Sun class action lawsuit was filed in New York
federal court.
A new class action lawsuit alleges Kraft Heinz falsely advertises
that its Capri-Sun juice pouches contain all natural ingredients.
Plaintiff Alyssa Flexer claims in the Jan. 24 lawsuit that the
Capri-Sun juice pouches contain citric acid, a synthetic
ingredient, despite Kraft Heinz's advertising of all natural
ingredients.
"Defendant makes this claim in order to capitalize on consumers'
preference for natural foods that do not contain synthetic
ingredients," the class action says.
Flexer wants to represent a nationwide class and New York subclass
of consumers who purchased Capri-Sun juice pouches for personal,
family or household consumption and not for resale.
She claims Kraft Heinz is guilty of unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty and of violating New York General Business Law.
Plaintiff claims Kraft Heinz profited 'enormously' from falsely
advertising Capri-Sun products
Flexer argues Kraft Heinz profits "enormously" from falsely
advertising that its Capri-Sun juice pouches contain all natural
ingredients.
"The purpose of this action is to require Defendant to change its
labeling claims and to provide consumers with monetary relief for
its deceptive and misleading product claims," the Capri-Sun class
action says.
Flexer claims she would not have purchased Capri-Sun juice pouches,
or would have paid less for them, had she known they contained
synthetic ingredients.
The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages for herself and all class members.
Last year, Kraft Heinz Foods Company was slapped with a class
action lawsuit alleging it falsely advertises that its Capri-Sun
products are made with "All Natural Ingredients."
The plaintiff is represented by Joshua D. Arisohn of Arisohn LLC.
The Capri-Sun juice pouches class action lawsuit is Alyssa Flexer
v. Kraft Heinz Food Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN]
LABORATORY CORP: High Court to Review Proposed ADA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan M. Ackerman of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that on Friday, January 31, 2025, the
U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings v. Davis, No. 24-304, to decide "[w]hether a
federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class
lack any Article III injury." This has the potential to be one of
the most significant developments in class action law in several
years.
The plaintiffs, who are blind, sued Labcorp under the Americans
With Disabilities Act and California Unrah Civil Rights Act (Act)
because its self-service kiosks were not accessible to the blind
without assistance. They seek minimum statutory damages of $4,000
per violation under the Act—potentially $500 million per year.
The proposed class was defined to include any legally blind person
who walked into a facility that had a kiosk and was unable to use
it, regardless of whether they were aware of it or desired to use
it. The district court certified the class and the Ninth Circuit
affirmed in an unpublished opinion with little analysis because
prior Ninth Circuit decisions had held that only the named
plaintiff must establish Article III standing. Here, a named
plaintiff walked into the facility, inquired about a kiosk and then
was assisted by an employee at the front desk. According to the
petition for certiorari, many putative class members were not aware
of the kiosks and used the front desk, and the plaintiffs did not
identify anyone who was unable to receive services due to the
kiosks.
Circuits are split on whether or what extent class members must
have standing (i.e., a "concrete and particularized" "invasion of a
legally protected interest" that is "actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical") at the class certification stage, or
at some other stage in the case. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, it
was sufficient for the named plaintiff to have sustained an injury,
even if many other putative class members did not. The Second and
Eighth Circuits have articulated a relatively strict approach that
all class members must have standing. The First and D.C. Circuits
appear to have required that a class contain no more than a "de
minimus" number of proposed class members who lack standing. The
Seventh Circuit has found that a class may be certified unless a
"great many" class members lack standing. Finally, the Eleventh
Circuit appears to have agreed with the Ninth Circuit that only a
named plaintiff must have standing. I say "appears to have" because
there is some debate about how to properly interpret some of these
circuits' case law, and in some circuits the cases are not entirely
consistent.
This is an issue the Supreme Court was expected to decide in Tyson
Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016), but did not reach
in that case.
Defendants will be hoping that the Court's conservative majority
will rein in this type of class action and require that all
proposed class members have standing for a class to be certified,
while the plaintiffs' bar will be hoping the Court, if it does not
affirm the Ninth Circuit, adopts more of a "middle ground"
approach. Briefing is scheduled for March and April, to put the
case in line for decision by the end of June. Stay tuned. [GN]
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Morrill Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morrill v. Lakeview Loan
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20955 (S.D. Fla., Filed March 29,
2022), the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to file motion for class
certification under seal.
The motion for class certification shall be filed under seal and
shall remain under seal until further Order of this Court.
The nature of suit states Torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.
Lakeview is a servicer of residential mortgage loans.[CC]
LAMB WESTON: Faces Suit Over Frozen Potato Products' Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foods Galore, Inc. v. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.; Lamb Weston,
Inc.; Lamb Weston BSW, LLC; Lamb Weston/Midwest, Inc.; Lamb Weston
Sales, Inc.; McCain Foods Limited; McCain Foods USA, Inc.; J.R.
Simplot Co.; Cavendish Farms Ltd; Cavendish Farms, Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-00799 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 23, 2025) is a price-fixing class
action against the four dominant processors of frozen French fries,
hash browns, tater tots, and other frozen potato products sold in
the United States.
Starting at least as early as 2021, the Defendants conspired to fix
the prices of their Frozen Potato Products above competitive
levels. The Defendants affected this price-fixing conspiracy
through implementation of lockstep price increases that allowed
them to realize unprecedented margins. This conspiracy has
continued, unabated, to the present. The Defendants have been able
to increase the price of their Frozen Potato Products even after
their input costs significantly declined, the suit contends.
Together, they control 97% or more of the $68-billion-per-year
Frozen Potato Products market. In order to conceal the conspiracy,
Lamb Weston told its managers to communicate about competitor
pricing and business intelligence using texting instead of emails
to avoid creating emails that could be discovered in the event of
an antitrust investigation. Although Lamb Weston managers obtained
their competitors' price announcements, they were forbidden to
email such announcements to C-suite executives so the latter could
more plausibly deny receiving information about the announcements,
the Plaintiff avers.
The Plaintiff purchased Frozen Potato Products at artificially
inflated prices within the State of New Jersey directly from one or
more of the Defendants during the Class Period.
Lamb Weston is a producer, distributor, and marketer of value-added
Frozen Potato Products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Justin N. Boley, Esq.
Melinda J. Morales, Esq.
Andrew J. Grant, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
jnb@wbe-llp.com
mjm@wbe-llp.com
ajg@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Jeffery A. Barrack, Esq.
Andrew J. Heo, Esq.
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
William J. Ban, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-0600
Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
E-mail: jbarrack@barrack.com
aheo@barrack.com
sbasser@barrack.com
wban@barrack.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Stay of Berg Class Action Continued
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRIZIA BERG, et al., v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, etc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07870-DMG-PD
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered an order continuing
the stay of the Berg action pending the Ninth Circuit appeal of the
class certification order.
-- The Parties shall file a further joint status report within 15
days of the Ninth Circuit's ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss
the appeal.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JghjQk at no extra
charge.[CC]
MANAGED CARE: Bid to Dismiss Crowe Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA CROWE, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MANAGED
CARE OF NORTH AMERICA INC., d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, et al., Case No.
0:23-cv-61065-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered
an order that:
1. The Motion to Dismiss is denied as follows:
a. Count I (Negligence) is adequately plead.
b. Count II (Breach of Implied Contract) is adequately
plead.
c. Count III (Declaratory Judgment) is adequately plead.
2. The Defendants shall file their answer to Plaintiffs' second
amended class action complaint by Jan. 31, 2025.
The Defendants claim that the Plaintiffs have not shown an actual
controversy, because the Plaintiffs' "assertion that they face a
continued risk of harm is undermined by their own allegations."
But as Plaintiffs note, the Defendants continue to "possess
[Plaintiffs' and Class Members'] Private Information," the
effectiveness of Defendants' security measures is unclear, and
there is risk that the Private Information will be compromised in
the future.
As such, the Plaintiffs have put forward enough allegations of a
live controversy and threat of future injury, and so their
Declaratory Judgment Act claim can proceed past the motion to
dismiss stage.
The Plaintiffs filed their SAC against Defendants on Sept. 13,
2024. In the SAC, the Plaintiffs allege three claims on behalf of a
single, alleged nationwide class: Negligence, Breach of Implied
Contract, and a Declaratory Judgment Act ("DJA") claim.
MCNA Dental is a government-sponsored dental insurer and dental
benefits administrator.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vmgm3L at no extra
charge.[CC]
MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC: Court Stays Trial Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS ANTONIO GUZMAN
TORRES, et al., v. MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC, LLC, Case No.
3:24-cv-00343-RCY (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Roderick Young entered
an order granting the parties joint oral motion to continue the
presently scheduled June 9, 2025, jury trial, citing voluminous
third-party discovery and the additional discovery required for
Plaintiffs' planned motions for class action certification.
-- All impending trial deadlines in this matter are stayed. The
Court further orders the parties to file a joint status update
on or before Jan. 28, 2025, outlining their anticipated
discovery and class certification timeline, as well as
suggested trial dates.
-- The Court will reset this matter for trial following the filing
of the parties' status update.
Manganaro is a construction company based in Henrico, VA and
specializes in Masonry, Rough Carpentry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J0vN5h at no extra
charge.[CC]
MAXIMUS SERVICES: Mulder Suit Seeks Payment of Severance Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
LORI MULDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MAXIMUS SERVICES LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00151-JKM (M.D.
Pa., January 23, 2025) is a class action contending that Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated former
employees contractually-owed severance pay which is due and owing
under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and state
common law.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant who worked for
Defendant from August 2012 through August 2023 until her employment
was involuntarily terminated while she was on medical leave.
According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained a policy of
promising severance to employees who had worked for Defendant for
12 months or longer and whose employment was involuntarily
terminated for non-disciplinary reasons and who were not offered
comparable employment by a successor vendor of Defendant. However,
the Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff her severance upon
involuntarily terminating her.
The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant failed to accommodate
her, discriminated against her, and terminated her employment
because of her actual and/or perceived disabilities, because of
record of impairment/disability, and in retaliation for requesting
and requiring reasonable accommodations, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Maximus Services LLC is a for-profit company formed in Delaware and
headquartered in Virginia with a registered office in
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jake Daniel Novelli, Esq.
Michael Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 2000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
E-mail: jnovelli@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
MEDTRONIC MINIMED: Faces Maldonado Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC MINIMED, INC. and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV02344 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., January 28, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's
Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure
to indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to timely pay
final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
assembler in Los Angeles County, California since approximately
March 2015.
Medtronic Minimed, Inc. is a medical device company, with its
principal place of business in Northridge, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seung L. Yang, Esq.
Tiffany Hyun, Esq.
THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC
355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 985-1150
Facsimile: (213) 985-2155
Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com
tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com
MINNESOTA: Police, Peace Officers Balks at Private Info Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Griswold and Naasir Akailvi of Kare11 report that The
Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA) filed an
amended complaint Thursday, January 30, 2025, to make its lawsuit
against the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST Board) a class action suit.
The MPPOA announced it was suing the POST Board last week for
allegedly disclosing the private information of hundreds of
undercover officers across the state. Now, the state's largest
association for police officers has filed for an amendment to make
it a class action lawsuit, claiming the POST Board violated the
MGDPA when it released the information to an Illinois-based
nonprofit called the Invisible Institute.
"We are deeply concerned about the grave consequences of this
breach," said Minneapolis attorney Chris Madel, who is representing
the MPPOA. "The identities of these officers were exposed in a
colossal violation, endangering not only the officers but also the
communities they serve."
According to the initial lawsuit, the Invisible Institute published
a database of all Minnesota police officers, which included the
information of 257 undercover officers. The database, which allows
anyone to look up the employment history of Minnesotan police
officers, was published online and the MPPOA argues that it puts
the officers at risk.
Last week, a spokesperson for the Invisible Institute said that it
collected and published the data as it does with other states.
"The National Police Index collects data from each state's Peace
Officer Standards and Training (POST) agency through Freedom of
Information Act requests. We make public what we receive. We will
stay tuned to how the courts rule on this complaint." said the
statement.
"We took the previous data off the site, and have linked to the new
dataset provided by POST. We recognize there's certain limitations
on the kinds of officer information that can be made public in some
states. We think it is vital for the public to know the names and
job histories of the officers serving in their communities. This
kind of data has supported powerful reporting in Illinois, Utah,
Louisiana, and beyond. Reporting from Minnesota has shown that the
operations of the board are of pressing public interest," according
to the statement. [GN]
MOSAIC POTASH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguirre Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOSAIC POTASH CARLSBAD INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00079-GBW-GJF (D.N.M., Jan. 27, 2025) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Aguirre was employed by the Defendant as an underground
mechanic.
Mosaic Potash Carlsbad Inc. mines potassium minerals. The Company
specializes in the mining of sylvite and langbeinite. Mosaic Potash
Carlsbad serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
John J. Frawley, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, Il 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
sarendt@flsalaw.com
jfrawley@flsalaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Private Security Officers Seek Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT PINEY, ROMAN DIAZ, JOSE MARTINEZ, FREDDY SUAZO, and DESMOND
GRANT on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
TARGET CORPORATION, MSG ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, THE NEW YORK
YANKEES, LP, NYU LANGONE HOSPITAL F/K/A NYU LUTHERAN MEDICAL
CENTER, MOUNT SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., THE NEW YORK TIMES
COMPANY, B.J.'S WHOLESALE CLUB HOLDINGS INC., RXR REALTY LLC,
TISHMAN SPEYER ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP D/B/A 509 W 34, LLC,
BUENA VISTA THEATRICAL GROUP LTD. D/B/A DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES
INC., BXP, INC. F/K/A BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC., KERING AMERICAS,
INC., APPLE INC., CONGREGATION RODEPH SHOLOM, 34TH STREET
PARTNERSHIP, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.,
D/B/A MARSHALLS, THE GENTING GROUP D/B/A RESORTS WORLD CASINO, and
DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00671 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 23, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
Pursuant to its Paid Detail Program, the New York City Police
Department staffs police officers, detectives, sergeants,
lieutenants, and captains at private businesses throughout New York
City -- including those owned and operated by the vendors -- to
perform off-duty uniformed security work for hourly pay.
Allegedly, the NYPD and the vendors engage in a pattern and
practice of failing to compensate Officers for the work they
perform through the Paid Detail Program, routinely failing to pay
their wages until weeks or even months after their regularly
scheduled pay days. Furthermore, the NYPD and the Vendors engage in
a pattern and practice of failing to pay Officers at all for the
work they perform through the Paid Detail Program.
Additionally, the vendors fail to provide their employees with
Notices of Pay Rate and accurate wage statements, as required by
law, contends the suit.
The Plaintiffs are residents of the State of New York and had been
employed by Defendants until the present.
The City of New York is a municipal corporation that controls and
oversees, inter alia, the operations of the NYPD throughout its
five boroughs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pacific Sunwear of California, LLC d/b/a PacSun, Case
No. 0:25-cv-00284 (D. Minn., Jan. 23, 2025) alleges that
Defendant's website, www.pacsun.com, is not fully and equally
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its
implementing regulations and asserts a companion cause of action
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become,
and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a
civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn.
Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4
(2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat.
section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29,
subd. 4 (2023).
The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence
of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and
discriminated against by the Defendant's failure to provide its
online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible
with screen reader technology, the suit asserts.
Ms. Dalton is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled
under the ADA.
The Defendant offers clothing, and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, tops, bottoms, swimwear, activewear, dresses,
shoes, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndselaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
PATAGONIA INC: Faces Orona Suit Over Fake Sale Prices
-----------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA ORONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PATAGONIA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00140-MMA-AHG (S.D. Cal., January 22, 2025) arises from the
Defendant's practice of falsely inflating reference prices in order
to give the illusion of higher value, bigger discounts, and a false
sense of time pressure that constitutes false advertising in
violation of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Classes, seeks to hold
Patagonia accountable for its unfair, deceptive, and unlawful
policy of displaying false or misleading discount or "sale" prices.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of a Nationwide Class
and a California Subclass of consumers who purchased falsely
discounted products on Patagonia's website and is seeking, among
other things, to recover damages and injunctive or declaratory
relief ordering Defendant to disgorge all revenues unjustly
received from the proposed Classes due to its intentional and
unlawful practice of using false reference prices and false
discounts.
Patagonia, Inc. is an American retailer of outdoor recreation
clothing, equipment, and food.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower, Ste 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: kmclean@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
lpescia@sirillp.com
PETRO-LUD INC: Hunter Must Show Cause for Failure to Comply
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLEO HUNTER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PETRO-LUD, INC.
Case No. 1:24-cv-00181-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an
order that the Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanctions
should not be imposed – including striking of class allegations
or dismissal of the action – for Plaintiff's failure to comply
with the Court's orders and file the motion for class
certification.
Any failure by the Plaintiff to timely respond to and comply with
the order will result in imposition of sanctions, the Court says.
The Plaintiff Cleo Hunter initiated this action on behalf of
himself and a putative class with the filing of a complaint on Feb.
8, 2024. On May 6, 2024, the Court issued a scheduling order
setting the deadline to file the motion for class certification no
later than Jan. 17, 2025.
Subsequently, the Court denied the parties' stipulation to extend
this and other case management deadlines by 90 days.
The Plaintiff has failed to file the motion for class certification
by the deadline or otherwise made a filing explaining the
delinquency.
Petro-Lud is a full-service drilling and service company operating
primarily in the oil-rich and agriculturally-significant California
San Joaquin Valley.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XVDWyY at no extra
charge.[CC]
PF CALI PAYROLL: Stipulation on Briefing Deadlines Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Noel Strandholt and Frank
Lawson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
PF CALI PAYROLL, LLC; PF SUPREME, LLC d.b.a. PLANET FITNESS; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01256-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order denying the Parties
second stipulation re briefing deadlines for class certification.
The court does not find good cause to grant a continuance and
retains the current dates.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3v47bl at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHH MORTGAGE: Faces Graham Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
HELENA GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, d/b/a, PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES;
AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY; and ASSURANT, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-00432 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 24, 2025) is a proposed class action
brought by the Plaintiff Graham on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated homeowners who have or had residential mortgage
loans owned and/or serviced by PHH Mortgage and, in connection
therewith, were required to pay for lender placed or "force-placed"
hazard insurance policies.
Accordingly, in the event that borrowers fail to maintain their
hazard insurance policies, rather than attempt to maintain
delinquent borrowers' existing policies, certain mortgage loan
lenders and/or servicers choose to replace borrowers' insurance
policies with more expensive ones, known as lender-placed or
"force-placed" insurance policies.
The Plaintiff challenges the Defendant's practice of purchasing
force-placed hazard insurance from a provider pursuant to an
agreement that returns a financial benefit to Defendant and/or its
affiliates that is unrelated to any contractual or other bona fide
interest in protecting PHH’' interest in the loan, and which
results in unauthorized, unjustified and unfairly inflated costs to
the borrower for force-placed hazard insurance in violation of
law.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants are engaged his scheme
constitutes disguised, unlawful referral fees in violation of Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act's (RESPA) anti-kickback
provisions, as well as a violation of RESPA's ban on accepting a
percentage of settlement-service fees other than for services
actually performed.
Ms. Graham purchased her home located at 217 Barrett Road, Willow
Grove, Pennsylvania on Dec. 30, 1999, for $133,000. Over the years,
her mortgage has been serviced by multiple entities, culminating in
its assignment to Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation following
PHH's acquisition of Ocwen in 2018.
PHH Mortgage describes itself as a leading mortgage servicer,
managing a portfolio of loans across the United States. It engages
in the business of servicing residential mortgage loans, including
the imposition and management of lender-placed hazard insurance
policies.
PHH Mortgage acquired Ocwen Financial Corporation in 2018, thereby
assuming control over servicing mortgages previously managed by
Ocwen, including Ms. Graham’s mortgage.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
Travis A. Gordon, Esq.
J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC
The Rubicon Building
201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Telephone: (412) 545-3015
E-mail: jward@jward.com
POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Polestar Automotive Holding UK PLC (NASDAQ: PSNY)
between November 14, 2022 and January 16, 2025, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Polestar investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Polestar class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=33703 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Polestar's financial statements during the Class Period
were materially misstated; (2) Polestar understated its internal
control weaknesses; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements
about Polestar's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 31,
2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=33703 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company
at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized
by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Lockhart Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMARIAH LOCKHART, individually and as a parent and guardian of her
minor child, P.M., JUSTINE SHAMEY, individually and as a parent and
guardian of her minor child, A.B., KRISTIN ECKART, individually and
as a parent and guardian of her minor children, J.E. and T.E., and
CARA LEWIS, individually and as a parent and guardian of her minor
children, M.L. and A.L., and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL
GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00393-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.,
January 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary
contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, breach of
fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated individuals stored within their network
systems following a data breach between December 19 and December
24, 2024. The Defendants 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.
PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a software company with its principal
place of business located in Folsom, California.
PowerSchool Group LLC is a software company with its principal
place of business located in Folsom, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
Anne K. Davis, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
Email: lweaver@bfalaw.com
adavis@bfalaw.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Menopause Test "Ineffective," Marshall Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA MARSHALL and RAQUEL RILEY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROCTER & GAMBLE
COMPANY and SPD SWISS PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, Defendants, Case
No. 4:25-cv-00923 (N.D. Cal., January 28, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, and various state
consumer protection laws.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Clearblue
Menopause Stage Indicator. According to the complaint, the
Defendants' Menopause Test indicates women's menopause stage by
measuring their hormone follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) levels.
However, experts in the field explained that measuring FSH is not
useful for indicating menopause because FSH levels vary
unpredictably in the lead up to menopause. Instead, pattern of
menstrual bleeding is the only useful datapoint in indicating a
menopause transition, or menopause. As FSH levels cannot indicate a
menopause stage as the Defendants' claims, the Menopause Test is
worthless. As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations, the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says
the suit.
Procter & Gamble Company is a consumer goods manufacturer,
headquartered in Ohio.
SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostic GmbH is a medical diagnostic
company, with its principal place of business in Geneva,
Switzerland. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
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
- and -
Shana H. Khader, Esq.
Allison W. Parr, Esq.
Gemma Seidita, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: skhader@tzlegal.com
aparr@tzlegal.com
gseidita@tzlegal.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Bid for Class Cert. in Franco Due Feb. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Franco v. PROGRESSIVE
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00225
(M.D.N.C., Filed March 13, 2024), the Hon. Judge entered an order
as follows:
-- Motion for Class Certification due by 2/20/2025.
-- Response to Motion due by 3/13/2025.
The nature of suit states Breach of Insurance Contract.
The Defendant is an auto insurance company.[CC]
PUMP.FUN: Faces Another Class Suit Over Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne Ligon, writing for CoinDesk, reports that Memecoin factory
Pump.fun has been hit with another class action lawsuit accusing
the company of violating securities laws.
The law firm behind the suit is also behind two other class action
lawsuits against Pump.fun -- one representing buyers of PNUT and
the other representing buyers of HAWK.
Memecoin generator Pump.fun was hit with another proposed class
action lawsuit on Thursday, accusing the company and its executives
of raking in nearly $500 million in fees while violating U.S.
securities laws.
The suit, filed in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), hinges
on the crypto industry's biggest lingering question -- when is a
token a security? Though the suit alleges that every token created
using Pump.fun's platform is a security, and thus subject to U.S.
securities laws, that's far from a matter of settled law. Under the
new Donald Trump Administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) has indicated it's changing tack on crypto
regulation, creating a new crypto task force charged with
establishing a clear regulatory framework for the industry.
The lead plaintiff in Thursday's suit, Diego Aguilar, claimed to
have lost money trading three Pump.fun-created memecoins in
particular -- FWOG, FRED and GRIFFAIN. Though Pump.fun does not
itself create any of the tokens covered in the suit, the filing
accuses the company of "orchestrat[ing] this scheme by providing
automated tools that allow anyone to create and sell nearly
worthless digital Tokens in minutes" and thus qualifies as a "joint
issuer" of all tokens launched on its platform.
Aguillar's suit names a U.K.-registered company called Baton
Corporation, which it alleges is the operator of Pump.fun, as well
as three of the company's co-founders -- COO Alon Cohen, CTO Dylan
Kerler and CEO Noah Tweedale. Cohen declined to comment, telling
CoinDesk that he was speaking for himself and not the company. The
other members of the team could not be reached by press time.
The law firm that filed the suit, New York-based Wolf Popper LLP,
filed another class action suit against Pump.fun just two weeks
ago. That suit, filed on Jan. 16, has a different lead plaintiff
but similarly accuses Baton Corporation and its three co-founders
of selling an unregistered security -- the PNUT token, a
Solana-based memecoin inspired by Peanut the Squirrel, which the
suit claims reached a $1 billion market capitalization. At the time
of publication, the PNUT token is down 89% from its high of $2.25
last November.
Wolf Popper LLP, along with crypto litigation-focused firm Burwick
Law, is also behind the recent class action lawsuit filed against
the promoters of the HAWK token, a memecoin tied to influencer
Hailey Welch, a.k.a. Hawk Tuah.
Though Pump.fun only launched a year ago, the Solana-based memecoin
factory is no stranger to controversy. Last March, the U.K
financial regulator issued a warning against the platform, leading
Pump.fun to ban U.K.-based users. It also came under fire for its
now-disable livestream feature, which allowed some users to promote
their tokens with violent or sexual content.
The suit is seeking damages and attorneys' fees. [GN]
PW TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay OT to Technicians, Meshcheriakov Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN MESHCHERIAKOV, individually, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated plaintiffs, Plaintiff v. PW TECHNOLOGY
CONSULTING LLC, d/b/a Introl and Inrtol.io, RYAN PUCKETT,
individually and KEITH KAGEFF, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-02071 (W.D. Tenn., January 23, 2025) alleges that
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and seeks
permanent injunctive relief, back wages, liquidated damages, and
other damages for Plaintiff and others similarly situated.
The complaint asserts that Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and
other similarly situated individuals as independent contractors and
failed to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40.
Plaintiff Meshcheriakov currently resides in Memphis, Tennessee and
Atlanta, Georgia, and worked as a fiber technician or data center
technician in Tennessee and Georgia for the Defendants.
PW Technology Consulting LLC designs and builds graphic processing
unit infrastructure for data centers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
Attorneys at Law
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
- and -
Daniel Velvel Rivkin, Esq.
DANIEL RIVKIN LEGAL SERVICES
1415 Brookcliff Place
Marietta, GA 30062
Telephone: (404) 862-9627
E-mail: danrivkinlaw@att.net
RETAILMENOT INC: Faces Class Action Over Brand Deal Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that two YouTubers claim
in a proposed class action lawsuit that the RetailMeNot browser
extension has been systematically hijacking their brand deal
commissions.
The 26-page lawsuit accuses RetailMeNot, which automatically finds
and applies coupons during online checkout, of perpetrating a "huge
scam" against creators who promote sponsored content on their
social media platforms.
According to the complaint, influencers can earn commission from a
sponsorship when their product advertisement leads a viewer to
click on a link to the brand's website and make a purchase.
Companies track whether a content creator is owed a commission for
a sale using affiliate links, which contain a code unique to the
influencer, the case says.
"When a consumer clicks on an affiliate link, a cookie -- a
collection of data that associates information with a given Creator
-- is placed on their browser, which merchants and affiliate
networks use to confirm that a consumer was directed to the
merchant's website from a specific Creator," the suit explains.
The filing alleges that RetailMeNot manipulates these cookies to
divert creators' rightfully owed commissions to itself. More
specifically, the case contends, the browser extension deletes
influencers' unique information from the tracking cookie and
replaces it with its own data.
Per the complaint, RetailMeNot's alleged commissions diversion scam
is triggered when a consumer clicks on the "Apply All Saving" or
"Show Code" buttons, regardless of whether the extension finds any
discounts.
One plaintiff, a California resident who runs a YouTube channel
called TechSource, claims that his brand deal commissions have
dropped over the past several years despite increasing viewership.
The lawsuit alleges RetailMeNot is unfairly taking earnings from
the influencer, who has devoted "tremendous effort and time" to
building a following of more than 3.8 million subscribers and
researching which products to promote on his platform.
"RetailMeNot is not a 'party' to the affiliate marketing strategy,
nor does it promote the product, but it swoops in at the last
minute to get the 'last [click]' by manipulating cookies to collect
commissions which should have been attributed influencers [sic] who
did the work to promote the products," the complaint contends.
The RetailMeNot lawsuit comes on the heels of a similar case
against PayPal's Honey extension, a popular coupon finder that
allegedly robbed creators of their commissions by replacing
affiliate links.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who has
participated in an affiliate commission program with a United
States online merchant and had their commissions diverted by
RetailMeNot through its browser extension. [GN]
ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Mitchell Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
LANESHA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES,
PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00228-DDD-CYC (D. Colo., January
23, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally
identifiable information and protected health information of its
patients, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information
systems on September 13, 2024.
RMG detected unusual activity in its computer systems and
ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its
network and obtained certain files from its systems on September
13, 2024. As a result of the data breach, which RMG failed to
prevent, the private information of Defendant's patients, including
Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including
their name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, health
insurance information, diagnosis and treatment information, says
the suit.
On behalf of herself and the Class, the Plaintiff brings causes of
action against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach
of fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract, seeking an award
of monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, for
Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive
private information.
Rocky Mountain Gastroenterology Associates, PLLC is the largest GI
practice in the Rocky Mountain region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
SBKU SERVICES: FLSA Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE LUIS RUIZ GONZALEZ
and DANILO RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SBKU SERVICES INC., doing business as KUMO JAPANESE
STEAKHOUSE, ROBERT LAM and TONY LAM individually, Case No.
2:23-cv-08797-SJB-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Steven Locke
entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs'
Motion, as follows:
(1) this matter is conditionally certified as an FLSA
collective action for a class defined as all individuals who
were employed by the Defendants as non-tipped, non-exempt,
overtime-eligible kitchen workers and/or bussers at any
point between March 26, 2021 and March 26, 2024, and who
file a consent form to join this action for unpaid overtime
compensation and liquidated damages;
(2) a three-year statute of limitations applies to the FLSA
claims;
(3) the Named Plaintiffs shall revise their Proposed Notice and
Opt-In Form consistent with this Memorandum and Order;
(4) the Named Plaintiffs shall be permitted to send the notice
to potential FLSA collective members via first-class mail,
email, and text message, as well as to post it at Hirosaki;
and
(5) Defendants are directed to provide the Named Plaintiffs with
a computer-readable list of all non-tipped kitchen workers
and bussers who were employed at Kumo at any point in the
three years prior to the filing of Plaintiffs' Motion along
with the following information: name, last known mailing
addresses, alternate addresses (if any), email addresses,
cell phone numbers, and dates of employment at Kumo.
The Court grants the Named Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New
York Labor Law (NYLL) in part and denies it in part.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xq8dgE at no extra
charge.[CC]
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Remijio Sues for Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAY ALLEN REMIJIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE SERVICES
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-00132 (E.D. Cal., January 23,
2025) is a class action against SelectQuote Insurance Services
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant routinely violates the law by
delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement
or marketing call to residential or cellular telephone numbers
registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry without prior
express invitation or permission required by the TCPA.
The calls were made regarding the Defendant's offering of
supplemental Medicare insurance. The Plaintiff did not request
information or promotional materials from Defendant. He suffered
actual harm as a result of the subject calls in that he suffered an
invasion of privacy, an intrusion into his life, and a private
nuisance, says the suit.
SelectQuote Insurance Services Inc. provides insurance agent and
broker services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 738-7080
Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
SEPM MARKETING: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind Cole Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
HARON COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEPM MARKETING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00872 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 27, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.stationeryxpress.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Sepm Marketing, Inc is a marketing agency based in San Diego, CA
that provides a range of services to help businesses enhance their
online presence and reach their target audience effectively. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
Email: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com
SIG SAUER: Avalos Sues Over Defective Firearm Sight Product
-----------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY AVALOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIG SAUER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00451-JP (E.D. Pa., Jan. 29, 2025) alleges that the
Defendant sells defective Sig Sauer's Romeo 5 Red Dot firearm
sight.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Product is
defective because the sight is powered by a small button cell
battery that can be easily accessed by children posing an ingestion
hazard. The packaging failed to provide an adequate warning of this
potential hazard to consumers.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product, while lacking the knowledge
that the Product was defectively designed and posed a hazard to his
minor children and pets. Because the Plaintiff was injured by the
Product, along with all consumers that purchased this dangerous
product, they have suffered losses. As a result of the above
losses, the Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable remedies, says
the suit.
Sig Sauer, Inc. designs and manufactures firearms for military, law
enforcement, and commercial markets. The Company offers pistols,
rifles, short barrel rifles, and firearms accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert W. Zimmerman, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI BENDESKY
1650 Market Street, 52 nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215)-575-3898
Facsimile: (215)-496-0999
Email: rzimmerman@smbb.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Fisher Seeks Packers' Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABBY L. FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SNYDER'S-LANCE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00049 (W.D.N.C.,
Jan. 23, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Prior to clocking in, the Defendant allegedly required the
Plaintiff and the Hourly Packers to change into steel toe boots and
put on safety PPE, which took 1-2 minutes each shift. Additionally,
the Plaintiff and the Hourly Packers were required to wash their
hands and clean their safety gear before each shift, and before
clocking in. This process took 2-3 minutes each shift. Similarly,
before clocking back in to Defendant's timekeeping system after
their meal periods, the Plaintiff and the Hourly Packers were
required to wash their hands and clean their safety gear. This
process took 2-3 minutes each shift. Finally, at the end of each
shift and after clocking out of Defendant's timekeeping system, the
Plaintiff and the Hourly Packers were required to remove earplugs
and safety nets, and change into their regular shoes. This process
took 1-2 minutes each shift.
Altogether, the Plaintiff and the Hourly Packers spent 6-10 minutes
per day performing the pre-, mid- and post-shift off-the-clock
tasks. The Defendant failed and refused to compensate Plaintiff and
other Hourly Packers for the time spent performing the pre-, mid-
and post-shift off-the-clock tasks, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff also seeks all available relief under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law ("PWPCL"), and state common law.
Plaintiff Fisher was employed by the Defendant as a packer from
Sept. 17, 2022, through June 24, 2023.
Snyder's-Lance manufactures and markets snack foods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James J. Mills, Esq.
BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL, P.A.
Raleigh, NC 27608
Telephone: (919) 782-1441
E-mail: jmills@bdppa.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Meghan Higday, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
mh@melmedlaw.com
SOUTHWEST STAGE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Sutton Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LEON SUTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST STAGE FUNDING, LLC, d/b/a CASCADE
FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00251-KML (D.
Ariz., January 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant
for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated clients stored within its computer systems
following a data breach between July 8, 2024, and July 9, 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.
Southwest Stage Funding, LLC, doing business as Cascade Financial
Services, is a company that provides mortgage loans for
manufactured homes based in Chandler, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7508 North 59th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301
Telephone: (602) 730-100
Facsimile: (602) 612-6266
Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
SOUTHWEST STAGE: Sutton Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL SUTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST STAGE FUNDING, LLC, d/b/a CASCADE
FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00250-JFM (D.
Ariz., January 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant
for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated clients stored within its computer systems
following a data breach between July 8, 2024, and July 9, 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.
Southwest Stage Funding, LLC, doing business as Cascade Financial
Services, is a company that provides mortgage loans for
manufactured homes based in Chandler, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7508 North 59th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301
Telephone: (602) 730-100
Facsimile: (602) 612-6266
Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Kayman Alleges Racial Discrimination, Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAMINE KAYMAN, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of
minor T.W., Plaintiffs v. SPIRIT HALLOWEEN SUPERSTORES LLC, ALYSAH
PEREZ, individually and in her official capacity, SHADIA PRUNNER,
individually and in her official capacity, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00108-FJS-MJK (N.D.N.Y., January 23,
2025) is an action for legal and equitable relief to redress
Defendants' unlawful discrimination and harassment based on race
and disability against Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have subjected African
American and disabled customers to a hostile environment on account
of their race as African Americans, and their protected status as
disabled Americans. The Defendants have embarked on a pattern and
practice of pervasive and severe hostile conduct in their retail
stores, depriving Plaintiffs of the terms, conditions and benefits
afforded them under federal and state law.
Further, the Defendants, and each of them, through their agents and
employees, denied Plaintiffs the same right to contract as European
American customers by maintaining an intolerable hostile
environment fueled by racial animus against African Americans.
The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants discriminated
against them in violation of both the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the New York State Human Rights law by discriminating
against them on the basis of race and disability.
Spirit Halloween Superstores LLC is an American seasonal retailer
that supplies Halloween decorations, costumes, props and
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jesse P. Ryder, Esq.
RYDER LAW FIRM
6739 Myers Road East
Syracuse, NY 13057
Telephone: (315) 382-3617
Facsimile: (315) 295-2502
E-mail: ryderlawfirm@gmail.com
STAKE CENTER: Filing of Supplemental Briefing Extended to Feb. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRAIN MONROE and ANDRELL
WHITE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. STAKE
CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00692-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Hanes entered an order granting in part
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend deadline.
The Court previously ordered the Plaintiffs to file supplemental
briefing in support of their Motion for Class Certification no
later than Jan. 27, 2025.
The Court finds good cause, based on those scheduling concerns, to
extend the Plaintiffs' deadline to Feb. 7, 2025.
The Defendant's deadline to file supplemental briefing is,
accordingly, extended to Feb. 21, 2025.
Stake provides utility locating services for gas, power,
communications, cable, and large fiber optic networks.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jFn7UJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
STEINWAY AND SONS: Thorne Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STEINWAY AND SONS, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00788 (S.D.N.Y., January 27, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law, and 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.steinway.com/steinway-boutique, 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 (alt-text) or
a text equivalent, 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.
Steinway and Sons 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
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Court Bifurcates February 2025 Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACK BUTLER, DESHAUN SIMS,
CLYDE LOFTON, PAUL ALVER, KEVIN KING, and RICKEY LYNCH, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY,
Case No. 2:11-cv-02602-JS-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joanna
Seybert entered an order granting Plaintiffs' request to bifurcate
the currently scheduled February 2025 trial.
Therefore, the trial scheduled to commence on Feb. 10, 2025, shall
be limited to the determination of liability only.
Finally, to the extent the Parties dispute Plaintiffs' claims to
general damages, that argument is premature. If liability is
established, the County may oppose Plaintiffs' claim that they are
entitled to general damages based upon Constitutional deprivations
of liberty and personal rights, via a motion in limine, before the
damages trial commences.
However, its position regarding the Plaintiffs' claims to general
damages, at this juncture, is not a basis to deny Plaintiffs'
Bifurcation Motion. Relatedly, if liability is established,
Plaintiffs may seek further bifurcation of the damages trial.
Suffolk County is the easternmost county in the U.S. state of New
York, constituting the eastern two-thirds of Long Island.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=33o65Q at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel H.R. LaGuardia, Esq.
John Nathanson, Esq.
Elizabeth J. Stewart, Esq.
Benjamin Klebanoff, Esq.
ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN & STERLING US LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
- and -
Christopher T. Dunn, Esq.
Amy Belsher, Esq.
Gabriella Larios, Esq.
Veronica R. Salama, Esq.
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Christopher Murray, Esq.
Michelle A. Klein, Esq.
Elizabeth S. Sy, Esq.
Caitlyn M. Gibbons, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
926 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556-0926
Telephone: (516) 357-3000
Facsimile: (516) 357-3333
E-mail: e.murray@rivkin.com
TASKUS INC: Class Cert Oral Argument in Lozada Set for Feb. 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01479-JPC-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John
Cronan entered an order granting Defendants' requests for oral
argument.
The Court will hear oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and appointment of Class Representatives and
Class Counsel, at 10:00 a.m. on Feb. 18, 2025, in Courtroom 12D at
500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close Docket Numbers 96 and 127.
TaskUs is an outsourcing company that handles content moderation,
customer experience, artificial intelligence, operations and risk &
response services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q9nMZL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 455-2000
E-mail: jyoungwood@stblaw.com
TELUS INTERNATIONAL: 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
Southern District of New York, captioned Sarria v. TELIS
International (Cda) Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00889, on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired TELUS
International (Cda) Inc. ("Telus International" or the "Company")
(NYSE: TIXT) securities between February 16, 2023 and August 1,
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 9, 2024, Telus International released its first quarter 2024
financial results, revealing a $29 million decline in revenue year
over year. On the same day, the Company held an earnings call
during which Chief Financial Officer, Gopi Chande was asked by an
analyst to clarify "what margin should look like on a go-forward
basis" as margins "were down year-over-year and . . . were below
the full year guidance." In response, Gopi Chande revealed that the
margins generated by the Company's AI offerings "can be a bit below
average."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.41 or 18.15%, to
close at $6.36 on May 9, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on August 2, 2024, before the market opened, Telus
International released second quarter 2024 financial results,
revealing a significant slowdown in revenue generation: a $5
million quarter-over-quarter or $15 million year-over-year revenue
decrease; a $23 million or 15% quarter-over-quarter adjusted EBITDA
decrease; and 14.6% quarter-over-quarter reduction in adjusted
EBITDA margin, from 23.3% to 19.9%. As a result, Telus
International announced it had significantly reduced its full year
2024 fiscal guidance. The Company also disclosed that Jeff Puritt,
then-President and Chief Executive Officer, would retire effective
September 3, 2024. In an earnings call held the same day, Puritt
disclosed that the transition of the Company "towards a more
technology centric and specifically AI fueled business,"
"necessitates some cannibalization of our tenured and higher margin
CX work." Puritt concluded that, ultimately, the Company is "going
to have to take it on the chin a little bit in terms of our
historical margin profile" and rely upon "eating our own roommate
cooking internally," referring the self-cannibalization of the
business, "in order to create the headwind we need to enjoy the
margin yield that we've historically benefited from."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.33 or 35.96%, to
close at $4.15 on August 2, 2024, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The stock continued to decline on the next trading day
available, falling $0.83, or 20%, to close at $3.32 on August 5,
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) the Company's AI Data Solutions offerings required
the cannibalization of its higher-margin offerings; (2) that Telus
International's declining profitability was tied to the Company's
drive to develop AI capabilities; (3) that Telus International's
shift toward AI put greater pressure on the Company's margins than
previously disclosed; and (4) 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 Telus International
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.,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
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.
If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN]
TICKETMASTER LLC: Omaha Federal Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OMAHA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TICKETMASTER, LLC; LIVE
NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and SNOWFLAKE, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00008-BMM (D. Mont., January 22, 2025) is a class
action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other financial institutions
that have suffered, and continue to suffer, financial losses as a
direct result of Defendants' conscious failure to take adequate and
reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's customers' personal and
financial data.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' actions exposed highly
sensitive data, such as cardholder name, address, email address,
phone number, primacy account numbers for credit and debit card
numbers, and others, to threat actors for an extended period. This
prolonged exposure compromised the privacy and financial security
of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the Plaintiff's and
Class Member's customers and was accessible for use by hackers for
months. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred
significant damages in replacing customers' payment cards and
covering fraudulent purchases, among other things, says the suit.
The Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of a nationwide Class,
seek monetary and non-monetary relief and assert claims against
Defendants for negligence (including negligence per se), unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
In 2009, Ticketmaster, LLC, merged with event promoter and venue
operator Live Nation to form Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
Together, Defendants operate as a leading force in the live
entertainment industry, promoting, managing, and overseeing
entertainment venues and ticket sales for live events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Domenic A. Cossi, Esq.
Adam M. Shaw, Esq.
WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES, PLLC
303 W. Mendenhall Street, Suite 1
Bozeman, MT 59715
Telephone: (406) 587-1900
Facsimile: (406) 587-1901
E-mail: domenic@westernjusticelaw.com
adam@westernjusticelaw.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Erin G. Comite, Esq.
Andrew Stanko, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
astanko@scott-scott.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Settles "Drip Pricing" Class Suit for CAD$6-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley King, writing for Digital Music News, reports that
Ticketmaster has settled a class action lawsuit in Canada regarding
its "drip pricing" practices, for which it must pay out $6 million
CAD. The settlement will be split between those signed on to the
class action and was finalized last week in a Saskatchewan court.
The lawsuit sparked from claims that Ticketmaster hid the prices of
ticket fees in 2018, breaching the Consumer Protection and Business
Practices Act. Allegations included that unnecessary fees outside
the regular ticket price were added deceptively at check-out.
Ticketmaster, while refusing to admit to any wrongdoing, agreed to
settle.
According to the settlement, affected customers are eligible to
receive up to $45 in Ticketmaster credit, which can be used toward
future ticket purchases. Eligible customers -- those who purchased
tickets in Canada between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018 --
should soon see an email communication from the company with a link
to receive their credit.
Estimates indicate up to 100,000 individuals in Saskatchewan and
potentially over a million across Canada could qualify for credits.
Eligible customers will receive their credits through electronic
gift cards. These are transferrable, but cannot exceed $45.
"While this case does not involve a mega-settlement, it has proved
to be a legitimate consumer protection lawsuit which could only
have been viably prosecuted as a class action," wrote Justice
Graeme Mitchell, of Regina, Saskatchewan's Court of King's Bench.
"Class counsel deserve an economic incentive for pursuing this
claim to its successful resolution."
Attorneys will receive $1.7 million, or more than a quarter, of the
settlement fund. Lead plaintiff Crystal Watch will receive
$25,000.
Once the distribution process is completed, any remaining funds
from the settlement will be rerouted to organizations chosen by
Ticketmaster and the plaintiff, pending final approval from the
courts.
This is far from the first time Ticketmaster has faced scrutiny
over misleading pricing in Canada alone. In 2019, the Competition
Bureau of Canada imposed a $4 million fine on the company over
similar accusations, determining advertised prices were misleading
due to mandatory fees added late in the transaction. "Canadians
should be able to trust the prices advertised are the ones they
will pay when purchasing tickets online," said Commissioner Matthew
Boswell.[GN]
TRINITY OPERATING: Patton Sues Over Unpaid Oil Proceeds Interests
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY PATTON, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY OPERATING (USG), LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 6:25-cv-00027-SPS (E.D. Okla., January 28, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of statutory
obligation to pay interest in violation of Oklahoma's Production
Revenue Standards Act (PRSA).
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated PRSA by
consistently ignoring its obligations to pay interest on late
payments of proceeds derived from the sale of oil and gas
production. The Defendant only pays statutory interest when those
legally entitled thereto demand it, despite the fact that no such
demand requirement exists. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
for himself and all similarly situated owners who received untimely
payments from the Defendant for which it did not pay the interest
required by PRSA.
Trinity Operating (USG), LLC is a producer of oil and gas, with its
principal place of business located in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randy C. Smith, Esq.
RANDY C. SMITH, PLLC
One Leadership Square, Suite 1310
211 North Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 212-2786
Facsimile: (405) 232-6515
Email: randy@rcsmithlaw.com
TURQUOISE HILL: Bid to Seal Exhibits in Securities Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion to seal Exhibits L, M, N, and O to the Declaration of
Salvatore Graziano, in support of Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The motion to seal the Exhibits in their entirety is denied,
without prejudice to the submission of a motion proposing redaction
to the Exhibits.
The "confidentiality interest and potential competitive harm"
suggested by Defendants, does not justify the wholesale sealing of
the Exhibits, given that "the sealing of a court filing must be
narrowly tailored to serve whatever purpose justifies the
sealing."
The Defendants shall submit a letter motion by Jan. 29, 2025,
proposing redactions to the Exhibits. The Exhibits shall remain
sealed until the Court renders a decision on that letter motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jlUdtg at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNION PACIFIC: Fitness For Duty Program Violates ADA, Hyatt Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEFAN HYATT v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No.
2:25-cv-00315-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2025) is a class action
suit brough by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated seeking
damages resulting from Defendant's violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act.
Beginning in 2014, Union Pacific implemented company-wide changes
to its fitness-for-duty program ("Fitness-for-Duty"). As a result
of these changes, Union Pacific imposed a blanket requirement that
employees in certain positions disclose specified health conditions
-- even where the condition had no impact on the employee's ability
to safely perform his or her job. This requirement was needlessly
invasive and violated the ADA by itself, but Union Pacific made
matters worse by imposing a policy that automatically removes
employees who disclose health conditions, or who Union Pacific
suspects may have health conditions, from service.
Union Pacific then subjects the employee to a Fitness-for-Duty
evaluation, again regardless of whether the employee has been
safely performing the essential functions of his or her job. These
evaluations do not assess whether an employee is capable of
performing the essential functions of his or her position, and
Union Pacific does not conduct physical examinations of employees.
Furthermore, Union Pacific routinely disregards the opinions of
outside doctors who do conduct physical evaluations of the
employees.
Instead, Union Pacific demands medical information from the
employee and conducts a "file review," regularly and arbitrarily
concluding that the employee is unfit for duty because of a
disability, and issuing unnecessary work restrictions it then
refuses to accommodate, says the suit.
In February 2016, several Union Pacific employees commenced a class
action disability discrimination lawsuit against Union Pacific,
alleging that Union Pacific’s Fitness-for-Duty policies and
practices constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination under
the ADA.
Plaintiff Hyatt was an employee of Union Pacific working in
Roseville, California.
Union Pacific is a railroad carrier engaged in interstate commerce
and has operations in Roseville, California and is headquartered in
Omaha, Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony S. Petru, Esq.
Gavin Barney, Esq.
HILDEBRAND MCLEOD & NELSON
5335 College Avenue, Suite 5A
Oakland, CA 94618
Telephone: (510) 451-6732
E-mail: petru@hmnlaw.com
barney@hmnlaw.com
UNITED SERVICES: Court Amends Case Schedule in Milionis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Milionis v. United
Services Automobile Association, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01743
(S.D. Cal., Filed June 3, 2022), the Hon. Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin
entered an order granting joint motion to amend case schedule.
-- The Court stays the current scheduling order deadlines until
it rules on the pending motion to certify class and motions
for summary judgment.
-- After the Court rules on those pending motions, it will
schedule any necessary remaining scheduling order deadlines.
The nature of suit states contract -- insurance.
USAA offers auto, life, flood, vehicle, business, health, and
condo, insurance services, as well as banking, investment, real
estate, retirement, financial planning, and mortgage services.[CC]
UNITED STATES: EO Violates Fourteenth Amendment, Aleman Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Delmy FRANCO ALEMAN, Cherly NORALES CASTILLO, and Alicia CHAVARRIA
LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves as individuals and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the
United States, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00163 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 24,
2025) seeks to declare President Donald J. Trump Executive Order
(EO) violating the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of birthright
citizenship to their soon-to-be-born children under the U.S.
Constitution, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Administrative
Procedure Act.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin the Defendants from
enforcing the EO to prevent the many harms it would inflict on
them, their children, and their families. Accordingly, the persons
targeted by the EO would be stripped of citizenship and left
without any immigration status. They will be left on the outside of
society and forced to remain in the shadows in fear of immigration
enforcement actions that could result in their separation from
family members and removal from their country of birth.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive
Order that purports to unilaterally alter the meaning of the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees
birthright citizenship. The order directs federal agencies to bar
certain persons born in the United States from the many benefits to
which U.S. citizenship entitles them, all by executive fiat. The EO
is allegedly a flagrant violation of the Citizenship Clause. In
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme
Court explicitly rejected the very interpretation of the Fourteenth
Amendment that the President now cites to purportedly deprive
people born on U.S. soil of U.S. citizenship.
The Plaintiffs are three expecting mothers who are not U.S.
citizens or lawful permanent residents with due dates after the
implementation date of President Trump's Executive Order. By the
terms of the EO—though not by the terms of the Fourteen Amendment
-- their children will be considered without status in this
country. They seek to represent a class of similarly situated
parents and their children. These children, although born in the
United States, will be deprived of U.S. citizenship under the EO.
The Defendants include Marco RUBIO, Secretary of State, Department
of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; James MCHENRY, Acting U.S.
Attorney General, Department of Justice; Benjamine HUFFMAN, Acting
Secretary of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Michelle KING, Acting
Commissioner for Social Security, Social Security Administration;
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; Gary WASHINGTON, Acting Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE;
Jeff WU, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES.
Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and
businessman serving as the 47th president of the United States
since January 2025.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matt Adams, Esq.
Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq.
Leila Kang, Esq.
Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS PROJECT
615 Second Ave., Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
E-mail: matt@nwirp.org
glenda@nwirp.org
leila@nwirp.org
aaron@nwirp.org
USC: Class Cert Hearing in Zarnowski Continued to Feb. 27
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE
ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and 2U, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-03389-GW-MAR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered the following hearing
date:
1. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
continued from Jan. 30, 2025 to Feb. 27, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.
University of Southern California is a private research university
in Los Angeles, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XaCQBI at no extra
charge.[CC]
USC: Favell Can File Exhibit Under Seal
---------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE
ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00846-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Jan.
21, 2025, application for leave to file under seal.
The court orders that the following document shall be sealed, as
indicated below:
1. Exhibit attached to Plaintiffs' reply in support of their
motion for class certification:
Brief Description Bates Designating
Exhibit of Document Number Party
Number
13 Joanna Gerber 2U FAVELL 2U
Deposition 00011797
Ex. 137
University of Southern California is a private research university
located in Los Angeles, the capital of the Pacific Rim.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I1AbCH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anna Haac, Esq.
David McGee, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
Emily Feder Cooper, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com
dmcgee@tzlegal.com
apersinger@tzlegal.com
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
ecooper@tzlegal.com
- and -
Eric Rothschild, Esq.
Tyler Ritchie, Esq.
Chris Bryant, Esq.
Madeline Wiseman, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL
DEFENSE NETWORK
1701 Rhode Island Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 734-7495
E-mail: eric@defendstudents.org
tyler@defendstudents.org
chris@defendstudents.org
madeline@defendstudents.org
WALMART INC: Mac & Cheese Contains Artificial Flavor, Taylor Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAITLYN TAYLOR and JUSTIN ALICEA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00186
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2025) alleges that front label for Great Value
Macaroni & Cheese Original Microwavable Cup which the Defendant
manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells, prominently
states that the Product contains "No artificial flavors" and "No
artificial preservatives" thereby misleading reasonable consumers
into believing that the Product is free from artificial flavors and
preservatives.
The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is
intended to give consumers the reasonable belief that they are
buying a premium product that is free from artificial ingredients.
However, the Product contains the artificial flavoring and
preservative ingredient citric acid, the suit contends.
Like other reasonable consumers, the Plaintiffs were deceived by
the Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated consumers to
remedy Defendant's unlawful acts.
This suit is a consumer class action for violations of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair
Competition Law, and breach of express warranties.
Plaintiff Taylor purchased the Great Value Macaroni & Cheese
Original Microwavable Cup product in the 4-cup and 8-cup varieties
several times throughout the class period at a Walmart store
located in Hemet, California. The Plaintiff's most recent purchase
was around October 2024.
Plaintiff Alicea purchased the Great Value Macaroni & Cheese
Original Microwavable Cup product in the 4-cup variety several
times throughout the class period at a Walmart store in Oroville,
California. The Plaintiff' most recent purchase was in 2024.
Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and
neighborhood markets.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lilach H. Klein, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: lilach@crosnerlegal.com
mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
WATLOW ELECTRIC: Fails to Fully Fund Commission Pools, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HEISS PRODUCTS, INC., EAGLEY, INC., KECAM, INC., KJL ENTERPRISES,
INC, C. HILSTAD, CORP., MURPHY TECHINAL SALES, INC., AMROB
ELECTRIC, LLC, BEAULAND, INC., BRIAN KEVITT, LLC, and INDUSTRIAL
TECHNICAL SALES, INC., v. WATLOW ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Case No. 4:25-cv-00091 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 24, 2025) is a class action
lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated who were subject to the
negligent or intentionally deceptive practices implemented by
Watlow, and or the negligence of its executives, directors, or
officers.
The practices at issue involve Watlow's failure to fully fund
commission pools as contractually required, and its failure to pay
its independent outside sales force all monies owed from those
commission pools. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated
depended on Defendant to fully fund commission pools, pay its
independent outside sales force all monies owed, and comply with
the provisions of its Agency Agreements with the Plaintiffs.
Watlow designs and manufactures heating solutions consisting
primarily of electric resistive heaters, temperature sensors,
temperature and power controllers and supporting software -- all
the components of a thermal system. Watlow partners with customers
to optimize thermal performance, decrease design time, and improve
the efficiency of products and applications. For more than 10 years
Watlow relied on a contracted salesforce to bring its products to
market -- that is -- until March 2024. Throughout that period
Watlow entered Agency Agreements with sales agent businesses across
the country to solicit domestic and international sales orders for
Watlow's products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert J. Camp, Esq.
WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS,
FISHER & GOLDFARB, L.L.C.
The Kress Building
301 19th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0500
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Unlawfully Collects Biometric Data, Paredes Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARAFAT PAREDES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WOODMAN'S FOOD MARKET, INC., a foreign
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00773 (N.D. Ill., January
23, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act against the Defendant to put a
stop to its unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff's
and putative Class members' sensitive biometric data.
According to the complaint, the Defendant collected, captured,
stored, transferred, and/or used Plaintiff's and Class members'
biometric identifiers or biometric information through its
timekeeping system. Therefore, every time Plaintiff or the Class
members clocked in or clocked out, the Defendant obtained a scan of
their fingerprint, thereby collecting, capturing, storing,
transferring, or using Plaintiff's and the Class members' biometric
information without their consent or a written plan for retention.
Plaintiff Paredes is a former employee of a restaurant operated by
Defendant in Buffalo Grove, Illinois working from approximately
December 18, 2023 to July 30, 2024.
Woodman's Food Market, Inc. is a grocery store chain that operates
multiple locations throughout the state of Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
kmilz@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Meghan Higday, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park E., Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: mh@melmedlaw.com
jm@melmedlaw.com
WYSSTA SERVICES: Discloses Members' Info to Google, Feeler Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WYSSTA SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00794 (N.D.
Ill., Jan. 23, 2025) is a class action against Defendant for
violating Plaintiff's privacy rights by disclosing the Plaintiff's
and other Delta Dental plan members' personally identifiable
information and non-public personal health information to various
third parties.
The Defendant accomplished these disclosures through the use of
hidden tracking code integrated by the Defendant into the online
healthcare portal they operate https://my.deltadentalcoversme.com/
on behalf of various Delta Dental entities that engaged the
Defendant to operate the Website for the use and benefit of Delta
Dental plan members, including Delta Dental of Illinois plan
members, the suit alleges.
By installing the tracking technologies, the Defendant effectively
planted a bug on Plaintiff's and Class Members' web browsers and
compelled them to disclose their private health-related data and
communications to Google. Google, in turn, used the information to
create individual profiles of the Delta Dental plan members for the
purposes of targeting them with advertising. Class Members,
including the Plaintiff, do not consent or authorize these
interceptions and disclosures, the Plaintiff avers.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, asserts claims under the federal Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and the Illinois' Eavesdropping Statute,
seeking damages and an injunction to stop this unlawful data
sharing.
Plaintiff Feeler has dental insurance through Delta Dental of
Illinois. In 2024, the Plaintiff used a Chrome browser on his
computer and logged into Defendant's healthcare portal and searched
for a dentist that was covered in his Delta Dental of Illinois
insurance network by using the Website operated by the Defendant.
Wyssta offers group vision and dental insurance products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP
433 Plaza Real, Suite 275
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 849-8060
E-mail: edwoskin@dwowas.com
XTO ENERGY: Bid to Certify Class in Kriley Suit Dismissed as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRILEY, et al., v. XTO
ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416 (W.D. Pa., Filed March 25,
2020), the Hon. Judge Christopher B. Brown entered an order
dismissing as moot regarding motion to certify class.
The nature of suit states diversity -- contract.
XTO is an American energy company and subsidiary of ExxonMobil
principally operating in North America.[CC]
YELLOW THE LABEL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. YELLOW THE LABEL LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00712
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://yllwthelabel.com/, 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.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Jan. 21, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Dauer Hoodie-Subterrain
and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff
encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to
contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Ms. Crumwell is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Yellow the Label is in the clothing industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Z GALLERIE: Tracks Website Visitors, Deol Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
GURMIT DEOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Z GALLERIE HOME LLC, a Texas corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00605 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 23,
2025) contends that the Defendant installed on its Website software
created by TikTok in order to identify website visitors, in
violation of the California Trap and Trace Law.
The suit says that the TikTok Software acts via a process known as
"fingerprinting." The TikTok Software gathers device and browser
information, geographic information, referral tracking, and URL
tracking by running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user
details to TikTok.
Furthermore, the TikTok Software begins to collect information the
moment a user lands on the Website, including Plaintiff's
information. Thus, even though the Website has a "cookie banner"
the information has already been sent to TikTok regarding the
user's visit, the Plaintiff avers.
Additionally, since Z Gallerie has decided to use TikTok's "Auto
Advanced Matching" technology, TikTok scans every website for
information, such as name, date of birth, and address, the
information is sent simultaneously to TikTok, so that TikTok can
isolate with certainty the individual to be targeted, the Plaintiff
adds.
The Defendant did not obtain Class Members' express or implied
consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the
purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of California residing and located
within the Central District of California. The Plaintiff visited
Defendant's website on Sept. 27, 2024, after the TikTok Software
was installed.
Z Gallerie is the proprietor of www.zgallerie.com, an online
platform that sells home decor and furniture such as art, lighting
and rugs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
[] AI Related Filings in 2024 Securities Class Action Rise
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Edwards, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that
securities class action lawsuits in US federal and state courts
increased for a second consecutive year in 2024, driven by a rise
in artificial intelligence and Covid-related filings, according to
a new report from Cornerstone Research and Stanford Law School's
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.
The Securities Class Action Filings -- 2024 Year in Review report
shows plaintiffs filed 225 lawsuits, up from 215 in 2023. The
number of 'core' filings -- excluding those related to M&A --
reached 220, 14% higher than the historical average of 193 between
1997 and 2023.
AI and Covid-19 issues saw the most filings with 15 each -- AI
filings more than doubled from seven in 2023, while Covid-19
filings increased by more than a third. That was followed by
SPAC-related filings (11), all three of which accounted for almost
a fifth of core federal filings, the survey data showed.
SPAC-filings, however, were down by more than half, as were
crypto-related filings.
Joseph Grundfest, professor emeritus at Stanford Law School and a
former SEC Commissioner, said: "Prospectively, crypto is the
elephant in the room. How will the statutes and regulations be
reformed? If much of crypto is redefined as not constituting a
security, then securities litigation in that sector will obviously
plummet. Stay tuned, is about all one can say."
More than half of the AI-related filings were in the technology
sector, with four in communications, two in the industrial sector
and one in the consumer non-cyclical sector.
The latter sector saw a jump in class actions filings, rising to 67
from 54 in 2023, driven by an increase in filings against biotech
companies.
The number of mega DDL (disclosure dollar loss) filings reached 27
in 2024, the highest on record, the value of which was also the
third highest on record at $438bn. Meantime, the share of core
federal filings with Rule 10b-5 claims -- those that result in
fraud or deceit in connection with the purchase or sale of any
security -- rose to the highest level in more than five years.
The number of core federal filings in the Ninth Circuit exceeded
those in the Second Circuit for a second consecutive year (69
compared to 64), however the number of filings in the Second
Circuit increased sharply from 49 in 2023.
Despite the overall increase in class actions, filings with claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 declined by a third to the lowest
level since 2013.
Grundfest added: "Retrospectively, 'no news' is the big news in the
world of securities litigation. The US Supreme Court initially
agreed to hear two cases involving private securities litigation
but then dismissed both with no decision on the underlying
questions of law. The concern among practitioners is that the court
will, in the future, be even more selective in deciding whether to
hear securities cases." [GN]
[^] Class Action Conference Opening Night Cocktail Reception May 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY &
ETHICS CONFERENCE, to be held May 7-8, 2025, at The Harmonie Club,
New York City. The 2025 Conference Agenda will be announced
shortly so stay tuned for updates.
Once a year, the top industry experts gather together to discuss
the latest topics and trends in class action. This value-packed
event features special presentations from keynote speakers and live
panel discussions with industry experts, and provides networking
opportunities with other professionals.
Register at https://www.classactionconference.com Breakfast and
lunch included.
Join us for the OPENING NIGHT COCKTAIL RECEPTION on May 7 from 5-7
p.m. also at The Harmonie Club. Enjoy specialty cocktails and hors
d'oeuvres with other professionals attending the conference. There
is no additional cost to attend the opening reception. The
reception is included in the cost of conference registration so
join us!
Missed last year's event? Check the 2024 CAME conference agenda at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html Videos of the
conference are available on-demand at
https://www.classactionconference.com/2024-video-replays.html
For sponsorship opportunities, contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.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 ***